“Haksar, Manmohan and Sonia” (2014)

My article “Haksar, Manmohan and Sonia” appeared today as an op-ed with the New Indian Express http://t.co/bRnQI1hrwy

In the summer of 1973, my father, then with India’s embassy in Paris, brought home two visiting colleagues separately, to advise me before I headed to undergraduate studies at the LSE. One was G Parthasarathi, India’s envoy in Karachi during the 1965 war [CORRECTION Nov 2015: Parthasarathi had left shortly before the war; Kewal Singh arrived as the war started] when my father had been acting head in Dhaka; G P was marvelous, strictly advising I do the hardest things I could find at LSE, namely mathematical economics. The other visitor was Manmohan Singh.

Manmohan, then in his early 40s, asked to meet me alone, and we plunged quickly into a heated debate about the demerits (as I saw them) and merits (as he saw them) of the USSR and its “planning”. He was taken aback by the lad, and at the end of his 40-minute visit said he would write to his friend Amartya Sen at LSE about me. An ambiguous, hardly laudatory letter of introduction to Amartya arrived, which I duly but reluctantly carried; I wish I had kept a copy but xeroxing was not yet a word back then.

When I told my father about the debate, he to my surprise said Manmohan was extremely highly thought of in government circles, had degrees from both Cambridge and Oxford, and was expected to become prime minister of India some day!

That prediction, more than 30 years before Manmohan did become India’s PM, was almost certainly a reflection of the opinion of P N Haksar, still at the height of his power as Indira Gandhi’s right-hand man. In a 2005 interview with Mark Tully, Manmohan acknowledged Haksar being his mentor in politics who brought him into government in early 1971. My father himself was sent by Haksar to the Paris embassy in anticipation of Indira’s November 1971 visit on her diplomatic tour before the Bangladesh War.

Fast forward to the afternoon of March 22, 1991, at Delhi’s Andhra Bhavan. I had met Rajiv Gandhi through S S Ray on September 18, 1990, and given him results of a perestroika-for-India project I had led at the University of Hawaii since 1986.On September 25, 1990, Rajiv formed a group consisting of Gen K V Krishna Rao, M K Rasgotra, V Krishnamurthy, S Pitroda and myself to write a modern agenda and manifesto for elections Rajiv said he expected by April 1991. Krishnamurthy later brought in A M Khusro to the group, and all these persons were present at the March 22 meeting—when I was unexpectedly challenged by Rasgotra demanding to know what Manmohan Singh would say about all this liberalisation and efficiency (and public goods, etc.) I had proposed.

That was the first mention of Manmohan in post-Indira politics. I replied I did not know what he would say but knew he had been on a project for Julius Nyerere, that the main thing was to get the world to see the Congress at least knew its economics and wanted to improve India’s woeful credit-standing.

The next day, on the lawns of 10 Jan Path, Rajiv launched Krishna Rao’s book titled Prepare or Perish. Rajiv was introduced on the occasion by none other than P N Haksar. I talked to Haksar briefly, mentioning his sending my father to Paris in 1971 and my father’s old friends the Kaul brothers, the elder being Haksar’s brother-in-law and the younger being Manmohan’s first boss in government. Haksar seemed unwell but was clearly delighted to have returned to favour after falling out with Indira during Sanjay’s regime.

The March 22, 1991, meeting was also one of several occasions when I, a complete layman on security issues and new to Delhi and in my 30s, warned as vehemently as I could that Rajiv seemed to my layman’s eyes extremely vulnerable to assassination. Absolutely nothing was done in response by anyone, other than saying I should probably speak to “Madame”!

One man’s response, in 2007 and 2014 publications, has been to deny he knew me at all and claim the group came to exist without me—when in fact it was created by Rajiv as a sounding board one week after I gave him the academic project results I had led since 1986. This same man had excitedly revealed to me on September 25, 1990, that his claim to a doctoral degree originated in the USSR in the 1970s; he has always concealed his experiences in that country. After Rajiv’s assassination, he rose to much background influence with Sonia, and one of his protégés is now apparently influential with Mr Modi too.

Sonia Gandhi I met only once to convey my condolences in December 1991, and give her a copy of a tape of conversations between Rajiv and myself during the Gulf war in January that year. She seemed a taciturn figure in deep grief, and apparently continued with the seven-year period of mourning traditional in her culture of origin.

Natwar Singh and Sanjaya Baru, in their recent publications, may have allowed basic misinterpretations of events to distract from what may be informative in their experience.

Natwar has said Haksar was central in May 1991 in the move (purportedly on behalf of Rajiv’s newly bereaved widow) to first ask S D Sharma to take the PM’s job, which Sharma declined. If so, this was a failed attempt by the “Haksar axis” of unelected non-politicians to maintain control of events. Natwar claims it was only then Sonia chose P V N Rao. In reality, P V N R was a highly respected leader who, though due to retire, was the acknowledged senior member in a group of regional leaders including S S Ray, Sharad Pawar and others. The Haksar axis failed to stop P V N R’s rise to the top job, though it managed to get Haksar’s protégé to become finance minister. Sonia was hardly involved.

As for Manmohan becoming Sonia’s PM, a senior Lok Sabha Congress leader with PM ambitions himself told me of his own accord in December 2001 that it was certain she would not take the top job herself and it was generally presumed Manmohan would get one term—the denouement of the Haksarian prediction my father made to me in 1973 in Paris. Contrary to Baru’s claim or even Manmohan’s own self-knowledge, it was never any “accident” that he became PM of India.

Finally on the issue of files being shown, the man named as the conduit is someone I became related to in law back in 1981. He and Manmohan, too, would have been sticklers for the rules. The real issue is this: given the 1970s brand of Soviet influence on the Congress, would anyone have said it was Kosygin as PM who did or could ever wield more power than Brezhnev the party boss? Of course not. The same with Manmohan and Sonia in India.

My Seventy Four Articles, Books (now in pdf 2021), Notes Etc on Kashmir, Pakistan, & of course, India (plus my undelivered Lahore lectures)

2) Law, Justice and Jammu & Kashmir (2006)

https://independentindian.com/2006/07/03/law-justice-and-jk/

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=152464726125

Monday, October 5, 2009

3) Solving Kashmir: On an Application of Reason (2005)
https://independentindian.com/2005/12/03/solving-kashmir-on-an-application-of-reason/

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=152462776125

Monday, October 5, 2009

4) My (armchair) experience of the 1999 Kargil war (Or, How the Kargil effort got a little help from a desktop)

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=388161476125

Thursday, April 29, 2010

5) Understanding Pakistan (2006)

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=152348161125

Monday, October 5, 2009

6) Pakistan’s Allies (2006)

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=152345826125

Monday, October 5, 2009

7) History of Jammu & Kashmir

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=152343836125

Monday, October 5, 2009

8) from 30 years ago, now in pdf

Foundations of India’s Political Economy: Towards an Agenda for the 1990s edited by Subroto Roy & William E James

indvol

Foundations of Pakistan’s Political Economy: Towards an Agenda for the 1990s edited by William E James & Subroto Roy

pakvol

9) Talking to my student and friend Amir Malik about Pakistan and its problems

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150297082781126

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

10) My thanks to Mr Singh for seeing the optimality of my Kashmir solution

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150271489571126

Sunday, September 4, 2011

11) Zafrullah, my father, and the three frigates: there was no massacre of the Hindu Sindhi refugees in Karachi in 1947

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150265008366126

Saturday, August 27, 2011

12) Conversation with Mr Birinder R Singh about my Kashmir solution

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150259831611126

Saturday, August 20, 2011

13) On the Hurriyat’s falsification of history

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150258949946126

Friday, August 19, 2011

14) Letter from a young Pashtun whose grandfathers were in the 1947 invasion of Kashmir (which the Hurriyat says never happened)

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150258851821126

Friday, August 19, 2011

15) More on my solution

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150258100876126

Thursday, August 18, 2011

16  ) A Hurriyat/Taliban Islamist emirate in the Valley subject to an Indian blockade would likely face famine.

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150257700231126

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

17) There is no Kashmiri nationality and there never has been in the modern era of international law

https://www.facebook.com/notes/subroto-roy/there-is-no-kashmiri-nationality-and-there-never-has-been-in-the-modern-era-of-i/10150255815456126

Monday, August 15, 2011

18) Of the Flag of Pakistan, and the Union Jack, and the Flag of India — August 14-15 1947

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150255301456126

Sunday, August 14, 2011

19) Talking about Kashmir in 1947 to Ralph Coti

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150254871116126

Saturday, August 13, 2011

20) Conversation with Prof. Bhim Singh about 1947

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150254495896126

Saturday, August 13, 2011

21) The LOC represents the division of ownerless, sovereignless territory won by military conquest by either side…

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150245816611126

Monday, August 1, 2011

22) Talking to Mr Tauseef

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150245521131126

Monday, August 1, 2011

23) J&K had ceased to exist as an entity in international law by August 15 1947, at most by October 22 1947

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150244867021126

Sunday, July 31, 2011

24) Would someone be kind enough to tell me which freedoms Indian Kashmiris are being deprived of?

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150243323381126

Friday, July 29, 2011

25) Kunan Poshpora: I would say the evidence reported by the Verghese Committee itself was enough to indicate there had been rape 28 July 2011

https://www.facebook.com/notes/subroto-roy/kunan-poshpora-i-would-say-the-evidence-reported-by-the-verghese-committee-itsel/10150242580476126

26) Talking to Mr Rameez Makhdoomi about Kashmir

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150241973371126

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

27) And, as you well know, General Hasnain is both Muslim and Kashmiri, besides being the Commanding Officer of 15 Corps.

http://www.facebook.com/subyroy?sk=notes&s=40

Friday, July 22, 2011

28) Kashmir needs a Coroner’s Office!

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150238284741126

Friday, July 22, 2011

29) A slogan for Kashmir: No exaggerations, no hallucinations, no cover-ups please: Just the plain facts & accountability

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150238136556126

Friday, July 22, 2011

30) Towards a Spatial Model of Kashmir’s Political History

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150234599731126

Sunday, July 17, 2011

31) Why did Allama Iqbal say “India is the greatest Muslim country in the world…”?

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150233148866126

Friday, July 15, 2011

32) Conversation with Mr Arif

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150230793806126

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

33) Omar Qayoom Bhat: A Victim of State Repression in J&K

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150229389496126

Monday, July 11, 2011

34) Good and evil in Kashmir over more than a millennium…

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150217168656126

Sunday, June 26, 2011

35) Letter to Mr Zargar (Continued)

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150212034496126

June 23, 2011

36) From the Official Indian Army website re Human Rights Violations

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150210741356126

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

37) A Facebook Discussion on Kashmir with the Lahore Oxford & Cambridge Society

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150208871201126

Sunday, June 19, 2011

38) Answering two central questions on the Kashmir Problem

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150202054326126

Friday, June 10, 2011

39) Some articles on Jammu & Kashmir, Pakistan, Afghanistan

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150201498846126

Friday, June 10, 2011

40) Lar ke lenge Pakistan? Khun se lenge Pakistan?

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150195065706126

Thursday, June 2, 2011

41) On Pakistan & Questions of the Nature & Jurisprudence of Polities

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150165301016126

Saturday, April 30, 2011

42) On “state involvement” (January 2009)

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?

on Friday, April 22, 2011

43) My four main 2005-06 articles on the existence of a unique, stable solution to Kashmir

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150155305266126

Sunday, April 17, 2011

44) On the present state of the Pakistan-India dialogue

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150140448906126

Thursday, March 31, 2011

45) Mixed messages (from a Dec 2008 post on Pakistan just after the Mumbai massacres)

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150117696731126

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

46) New Foreign Policy? “Kiss Up, Kick Down”? (October 2006)

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150098854806126

Friday, March 4, 2011

47) Conversations with Kashmiris: An Ongoing Facebook Note

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=489267761125

Saturday, January 22, 2011

48) On Pakistan and the Theory & Practice of the Islamic State, 1949, 1954

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=486039761125

Saturday, January 15, 2011

49) A Modern Military (2006)

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=483556931125

Monday, January 10, 2011

50) India’s Muslim Voices: Sir Sikandar Hyat Khan (1892-1942), Punjab Prime Minister 1941

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=476020171125

Monday, December 27, 2010

51) Pre-Partition Indian Secularism Case-Study: Fuzlul Huq and Manindranath Roy

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=445015731125

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

52) A Brief Note on Bangladesh, Pakistan, India and the Pashtuns 1971-2010

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=414500306125

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

53) On the Existence of a Unique and Stable Solution to the Jammu & Kashmir Problem that is Lawful, Just and Economically Efficient

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=407478886125

Monday, July 5, 2010

54) Seventy Years Today (Sep 4 2009) Since the British Govt Politically Empowered MA Jinnah

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=407310716125

Monday, July 5, 2010

55) Justice & Afzal (Oct 14 2006)

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=393914236125

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

56) A Brief History of Gilgit

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=336081356125

Monday, March 1, 2010

57)  India-USA interests: Elements of a serious Indian foreign policy (2007)

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=299902341125

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

58) Ambassador Holbrooke’s error of historical fact

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=259713446125

Sunday, January 17, 2010

59) Of a new New Delhi myth & the success of the Univ of Hawaii 1986-1992 Pakistan project (Nov 15 2008)

https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=247284116125

Sunday, 10 January 2010

60) Was Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah (1905-1982), Lion of Kashmir, the greatest Muslim political leader of the 20th Century?

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=244956301125

Friday, January 8, 2010

61) On Indian Nationhood: From Tamils To Kashmiris & Assamese & Mizos To Sikhs & Goans (2007)

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=222511821125

Friday, December 25, 2009

62) India has never, not once, initiated hostilities against Pakistan (2009)

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=194400926125

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

63) RAND’s study of the Mumbai attacks (Jan 25 2009)

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=189261716125

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

64) Memo to the Hon’ble Attorneys General of Pakistan & India (January 16 2009)

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=189251816125

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

65) On Hindus and Muslims (2005)

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=172649451125

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

66) Iqbal & Jinnah vs Rahmat Ali in Pakistan’s creation (2005)

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=171039831125

Saturday, October 31, 2009

67) Have “mixed messages” caused a “double-bind” in the US-Pakistan relationship?

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=164051251125

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

68) Pakistan’s Kashmir obsession: Sheikh Abdullah Relied In Politics On The French Constitution, Not Islam (Feb 16 2008)

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=154064436125

Thursday, October 8, 2009

69) Two cheers for Pakistan! (April 7 2008)

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=154062896125

Thursday, October 8, 2009

70) What to tell Musharraf: Peace Is Impossible Without Non-Aggressive Pakistani Intentions (Dec 15 2006)

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=153985256125

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

71) India’s Muslim Voices (Dec 4 2008)

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=153977181125

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

72) Saving Pakistan: A Physicist/Political Philosopher May Represent Iqbal’s “Spirit of Modern Times” (2007)

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=153971996125

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

73) The Greatest Pashtun: Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (1890-1988)

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=153812126125

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

74) KashNFL

The 5-Minute Negative Feedback Loop 2011 Model of Kashmir’s Problemss

“I’m on my way out”: Siddhartha Shankar Ray (1920-2010)…

 

 

 

 

 

November 7, 2010

I  am grieved to hear of the death of Siddhartha Shankar Ray last night.

I was introduced to him by an uncle who had been his college-buddy, and he took up a grave personal matter of mine in the Supreme Court of India in 1990 with great kindness, charging me not a penny, being impressed by a little explicit “civil disobedience” I had had to show at the time towards Judge Evelyn Lance.

He also told me he and his wife had been in London on May 29 1984 and had seen *The Times*’s leader that day about my critique of Indian economic policy. He invited me to his Delhi home where I told him about the perestroika-for-India project I had led at the University of Hawaii since 1986, at which he, of his own accord, declared

“You must meet Rajiv Gandhi.  I will arrange a meeting”.

That led to my meeting with Rajiv Gandhi, then Congress President & Leader of the Opposition, on September 18 1990, which contributed to the origins of India’s 1991 economic reform as has been told elsewhere. https://independentindian.com/thoughts-words-deeds-my-work-1973-2010/rajiv-gandhi-and-the-origins-of-indias-1991-economic-reform/

Rajiv’s assistant George told me Rajiv had said he had not heard more fulsome praise.

In Bengal, he took me as a guest to visit the Legislative Assembly in session when he was Leader of the Opposition; it was the legislature of which my great grandfather, Surendranath Roy, had been a founder, being the first Deputy President and acting President too; Surendranath had been friends with his maternal grandfather, CR Das, leader of the Congress Party before MK Gandhi, and he said to me in the car heading to the legislature about that relationship in Bengal’s politics some seven decades earlier “They were friends”.

He introduced me to all the main leaders of the Bengal Congress at the time (except Mamata Banerjee who could not come) and I was tasked by him to write the manifesto for the State elections that year, which I did (in English, translated into Bangla by Professor Manjula Bose); the Communists won handily again but one of their leaders (Sailen Dasgupta) declared there had never been a State Congress manifesto of the sort before, being as it was an Orwell-like critique of Bengal’s Stalinism.

In a later conversation, I said to him I wished he be appointed envoy to Britain, he instead came to be appointed envoy to the USA.

In Washington in September 1993, he said “You must meet Manmohan Singh”, and invited me to a luncheon at the Ambassador’s Residence where, to Manmohan Singh and all his aides, he declared pointing at me

“The Congress manifesto (of 1991) was written on his (laptop) computer”.

In later years I kept him informed of developments and gave him my publications.   We last met in July last year where I gave him a copy, much to his delight, of *Margaret Thatcher’s Revolution: How it Happened and What it Meant*.

I said to him Bengal’s public finances were in abysmal condition, calling for emergency measures financially, and that Mamata Banerjee seemed to me to be someone who knew how to and would dislodge the Communists from their entrenched misgovernance of decades but not quite aware that dislodging a bad government politically was not the same thing as knowing how to govern properly oneself.

He,  again of his own accord, said immediately,

“I will call her and her main people to a meeting here so you can meet them and tell them that directly”.

It never transpired.

He and I were supposed to meet a few months ago but could not due to his poor health; on the phone in our last conversation I mentioned to him my plans of creating a Public Policy Institute — an idea he immediately and fully endorsed as being essential though adding

“I can’t be part of it,  I’m on my way out”.

“I’m on my way out”.   🙂

That was Siddhartha Shankar Ray — always intelligent, always good-humoured, always public-spirited, always a great Indian.

I shall miss a good friend, indeed my only friend among politicians other than the late Rajiv Gandhi himself.

Will the Telangana flare-up awaken New Delhi from its dream-world and into India’s political reality?

Subroto Roy thinks the flare-up of the Telangana issue has one and only one positive consequence: it brings home to New Delhi’s ruling elite that there are real political questions in India, and not everything can be left to spin-doctors and lobbyists to handle.

“But he has nothing on at all,” said a little child at last.

From Facebook:

Subroto Roy  is hurt that Christopher Booker says “Not for nothing was Copenhagen the city in which Hans Andersen wrote his story about the Emperor whose people were brainwashed into believing that he was wearing a beautiful suit of clothes” because he always thought Hans Andersen meant it for modern New Delhi.

Annals of Diplomacy & International Relations

From Facebook:

Subroto Roy  finds it odd in diplomatic law and protocol that two American Presidents in succession have said respectively to the same Indian Prime Minister “You’re a good man” and a person of “honesty and integrity”.

Subroto Roy thinks Asia (from Israel-Palestine to Japan & Indonesia) needs its own Metternich and Congress of Vienna, but won’t get it and hence may remain many many decades behind Europe in political development. (And why Asia won’t get what Europe did may be because Europe did what it did.)

Subroto Roy agrees with Professor Juan Cole’s summary position: “India and Russia want an Obama ‘surge’ in Afghanistan because they are afraid that if Muslim extremists take over the country, that development could threaten their own security. China is more or less bankrolling the Afghanistan War…In contrast, Pakistan does not seem… eager for the further foreign troops, in part because it wants to project power and influence into Afghanistan itself”.  But he would add Russia, China, India and Iran too are free-riders from the military standpoint (though India has built power-stations, roads etc for civilian economic development), while Pakistan remains schizophrenic as to whether it wishes to define itself by the lights of Iqbal and Jinnah or by the lunacy of Rahmat Ali.

“Are Iran’s Revolutionaries now Reactionaries? George Orwell would have understood. A fresh poll may be the only answer” (2009)

I was born in Tehran because my parents were Indian diplomats there, and I would love to go back to visit Iran someday.  Not right now though as the country seems to be  plunging itself into a new Revolution and yesterday’s Revolutionaries are today’s  Reactionaries in a way that George Orwell would have understood and might have predicted.  (Back in December 1982, at the American Economic Association meetings in New York City, a man looking surprisingly similar to Mr Mohammad Ahmadinajad approached me  after I had read a paper “Economic Theory and Development Economics” to a large audience, introducing himself as a member of the UN delegation of the new Islamic Republic, giving me his card which I never kept… a story for another time…)

It would appear to me that the right political course of action would be for the disputed poll to be cancelled — with the consent and indeed at the  statesmanlike initiative of its declared winner;  to be followed by a short interregnum for normalisation and a calming down of all tempers to occur; and then for fresh polls to occur within, say, two or three months, taking transparent precautions that such an ugly mess not be repeated.

Subroto Roy

see too

https://independentindian.com/2006/04/06/irans-nationalism/

https://independentindian.com/2009/09/14/irans-modern-cinema-a-must-see-for-those-wishing-to-make-war/

https://independentindian.com/2006/02/24/war-or-peace/

Schoolboys exchanging fisticuffs in a school playground or elderly men battling over power and policy? Why did Manmohan Singh and LK Advani apologize to one another? Is Indian politics essentially collusive, not competitive, aiming only to preserve and promote the post-1947 Dilli Raj at the expense of the whole of India? We seem to have no Churchillian repartee (except perhaps from Bihar occasionally)

Yesterday the PM is reported to have been asked by someone travelling on his aeroplane from Moscow “whether he had forgiven Advani for calling him a ‘weak Prime Minister’”.

The question was absurd, almost ridiculous, typical of our docile ingratiating rather juvenile English-language press and media, as if any issue of forgiveness arises at all about what one politician says during an election campaign about another politician’s performance in office.

Dr Manmohan Singh’s answer was surprising too: “I was compelled to reply to what Advani said…On May 16 when (Advani) telephoned me, he told me that he was hurt by some of my statements. He said he was hurt and regretted his statements… I apologised to him if I have hurt him. I am looking forward to a close relationship with the Leader of the Opposition.”

So LK Advani appears to have apologised to Manmohan Singh and Manmohan Singh to LK Advani for what they said about each other during the recent general election campaign! What is going on? Were they schoolboys exchanging fisticuffs in a school playground or elderly men battling over power and policy in modern Indian politics?

What would we have done if there was a Churchill in Indian politics today – hurling sarcastic insults at domestic opponents and foreign leaders while guiding a nation on its right course during turbulent times?

Churchill once famously said his parents had not shown him “The Boneless Wonder” in PT Barnum’s circus because it was too horrible a sight but now he had finally seen such a “Boneless Wonder” in his opponent on the Treasury Benches, namely, Ramsay MacDonald. Of the same opponent he said later “He has the gift of compressing the largest number of words into the smallest amount of thought”.

When accused of being drunk by a woman MP he replied “And you are very ugly, but tomorrow I’ll be sober”. Today’s politically correct world would scream at far less. Field Marshall Montgomery told Churchill, “I neither drink nor smoke and am 100% fit,” to which Churchill replied, “I drink and smoke and I am 200% fit”. That too would be politically incorrect today.

Churchill described Prime Minister Clement Attlee as “a modest man with much to be modest about”; also about Attlee: “If any grub is fed on Royal Jelly it turns into a Queen Bee”. Yet Attlee had enough dignity and self-knowledge and self-confidence to brush it all off and instead respect and praise him. In the 1954 volume Winston Spencer Churchill Servant of Crown and Commonwealth Attlee added his own tribute to his great opponent: “I recall…the period when he was at odds with his own party and took a seat on the Bench below the Gangway on the Government side. Here he was well placed to fire on both parties. I remember describing him as a heavily armed tank cruising in No Man’s Land. Very impressive were the speeches he delivered as the international horizon grew darker. He became very unpopular with the predominant group in his own party, but he never minded fighting a lone battle.”

Stanley Baldwin, who as PM first appointed Churchill as Chancellor of the Exchequer, once said “There comes Winston with his hundred horsepower mind”. Yet Churchill was to later say harshly “I wish Stanley Baldwin no ill, but it would have been much better had he never lived.”

Of Lenin, Churchill said, he was “transported in a sealed truck like a plague bacillus from Switzerland into Russia”. Of Molotov: “I have never seen a human being who more perfectly represented the modern concept of a robot.” Of Hitler, “If [he] invaded hell I would at least make a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons”. Of De Gaulle, “He was a man without a country yet he acted as if he was head of state”.” Of John Foster Dulles, “[He] is the only bull who carries his china shop with him”. Of Stafford Cripps, British Ambassador to the USSR, “…a lunatic in a country of lunatics”; and also “There but for the Grace of God, goes God”.

Decades later, that great neo-Churchillian Margaret Thatcher was on the receiving end of a vast amount of sarcasm. “President Mitterrand once famously remarked that Thatcher had ‘the eyes of Caligula and the lips of Marilyn Monroe’. Rather less flatteringly, Dennis Healey described her as Attila the Hen. She probably took both descriptions as compliments.” (Malcolm Rifkind in Margaret Thatcher’s Revolution: How it Happened and What it Meant edited by Subroto Roy and John Clarke, 2005).

Politics is, and should be, grown up stuff because it deals with human lives and national destinies, and really, if you can’t take the heat please do not enter the kitchen. The slight Churchillian sarcasm that does arise within modern Indian politics comes very occasionally from Bihar but nowhere else, e.g. about the inevitability of aloo in samosas and of bhaloos in the jungle but no longer of Laloo being in the seat of power. In general, everyone seems frightfully sombre and self-important though may be in fact short of self-knowledge and hence self-confidence.

What had Manmohan Singh said about LK Advani that he felt he had to apologise for? That Advani had no substantial political achievement to his credit and did not deserve to be India’s PM. Manmohan was not alone in making the charge – Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and numerous other spokesmen and representatives of their party said the same. Has Manmohan’s apology to Advani been one on behalf of the whole Congress Party itself?

Was Advani’s apology to Manmohan one on behalf of the whole BJP too?

What had the BJP charged Manmohan with that Advani felt he had to apologise for?  Being a “weak PM”.

Hmmm. Frankly, thinking about it, it is hard to count who has not been weak as a PM in India’s modern history.

Certainly Vallabhai Patel as a kind of co-PM was decisive and far from weak back in 1947-48.

Lal Bahadur Shastri was not weak when he told Pakistan that a Pakistani attack on Kashmir would result in an Indian attack on Pakistan.

Indira Gandhi was not weak when she resisted the Yahya Khan-Tikka Khan tyranny against Bangladesh.

Had he not been assassinated, Rajiv Gandhi in a second term would have been decisive and not weak in facing up to and tackling the powerful lobbies and special interest groups that have crippled our domestic economic policy for decades.

But the number of such examples may be counted by hand.  Perhaps VP Singh might count, riding in an open jeep to Amritsar, as might AB Vajpayee’s Pokhran II and travelling on a bus to Lahore. In general, the BJP’s charge that Manmohan was “weak” may have constructively led to serious discussion in the country about the whole nature of the Prime Ministership in modern India, which means raising a whole gamut of issues about Indian governance – about India being the softest of “soft states”, with the softest of “soft government budget constraints” (i.e., endless deficit finance and paper money creation) etc.

Instead, what we have had thus far is apologies being exchanged for no real political reason between the leaderships of the Government and the Opposition. If two or three sellers come to implicitly carve up a market between themselves they are said by economic theory to be colluding rather than being in competition. Indian politics may be revealing such implicit collusive behaviour. The goal of this political oligopoly would seem to be to preserve and promote the status quo of the post-1947 Dilli Raj with its special hereditary nomenclatura, at the expense of anonymous diffused teeming India.

Subroto Roy

Postscript July 15 2009: Churchill’s mature opinion of Baldwin was one of the fullest praise at the 20 May 1950 unveiling of a memorial to him.  See his In the Balance, edited by Randolph S Churchill, 1951, p. 281

Eleven days and counting after the 15th Lok Sabha was elected and still no Parliament of India! (But we do have 79 Ministers — might that be a world record?)

A lawyer friend tells me she thinks it a “technicality” that there is no Lok Sabha or Parliament in India today despite eleven long days and nights having passed since the 15th Lok Sabha came to be elected by the people of India.  “At least we did not get Advani and Modi to rule”, is how she sought to justify the current circumstance.   I am afraid I think she has produced a non sequitur, and also forgotten the constitutional law she would have read as a student.

The best argument that I think the Government of India shall be able to give justifying their legal error in not having the 15th Lok Sabha up and running yet 11 days after India’s people have spoken would run something like this:

(1) The President of India invites a Council of Ministers led by a PM to form the government and has done so.

(2) The President must be satisfied that the PM commands a majority in the Lok Sabha, and the President has been satisfied by the 322  “letters of support” that the PM produced.

(3) The Government of the day calls parliamentary sessions and does so at its discretion, and the Government of the day headed by this PM has announced when it shall call the 15th Lok Sabha which will be in a few days yet.

Any such argument, I am afraid, would be specious because it simply puts the cart before the horse.

Parliament is sovereign in India, to repeat what I have said several times before.

Parliament is sovereign in India — not even the President who is the symbol of that sovereignty.  We do not follow the British quite exactly in this because we are a republic and not a monarchy.  In Britain sovereignty rests with “The King in Parliament”.  With us, Parliament is sovereign and the President is the symbol of that sovereignty.  In all matters of state, our President must act in a manner that Parliament and parliamentary law says.

Parliament is sovereign in India — not the Executive Government, certainly not its largest political party or its leader.

Parliament is sovereign in India because the people of India have chosen it to be so within the Constitution of India.

Parliament is sovereign in India and the people of India have elected the 15th Lok Sabha which has still not been allowed to meet eleven days later.

To the contrary, as noted days ago, the purported “Cabinet” of the 14th Lok Sabha, a dead institution, met on May 18 2009, some 48 hours after the 15th Lok Sabha had already been declared!   The 14th Lok Sabha in fact stood automatically dissolved in law when General Elections came to be announced.

Is all this merely a “technicality” as my friend believes?  I think not.

Executive Government in India derives its political legitimacy from being elected  by Parliament,  i.e., from holding the confidence of Parliament, and that means the Lok Sabha.

The Government of the day might  for sake of convenience have a prerogative of calling sessions of the 15th Lok Sabha once it has been constituted but the Government of the day cannot logically constitute a Lok Sabha after a General Election because it itself receives legitimacy from such a Lok Sabha.

If the 15th Lok Sabha has not met, confidence in any Executive has yet to be recorded, and hence any such Government has yet to receive legitimacy.

Do “322 letters of support” suffice?  Hardly.  They are signed after all by persons who have yet to take their seats in the Lok Sabha!  (Let us leave aside the fact that the PM, not being a member of the Lok Sabha, is in this case unable to be one of those 322 himself!)

Yet we have 79 “Ministers” of this new “Government” holding press-conferences and giving out free-bees and favours etc already.  As I have said before, Ambedkar, Nehru and others of their generation, plus Indira and Rajiv too, would all have been appalled.

Because the incompetence of the fascists and communists in the Opposition may continue to  be expected, it will be up to ordinary citizens and voters of India to point out such  simple truths whenever the Emperor is found to be naked.  (Our docile juvenile ingratiating media may well remain mostly hopeless.)

Subroto Roy

Why does India not have a Parliament ten days after the 15th Lok Sabha was elected? Nehru and Rajiv would both have been appalled (2009)

see too

Why has the Sonia Congress done something that the Congress under Nehru-Indira-Rajiv would not have done, namely, exaggerate the power of the Rajya Sabha and diminish the power of the Lok Sabha?

There are at least three Supreme Court lawyers, all highly voluble, among the higher echelons of Congress Party politicians; it is surprising that not one of them has been able to get the top Party leadership of Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh to see the apparent breach of normal constitutional law in Parliament not having met more than 10 days after it was elected.

A Government has been formed, Ministers have entered their offices and have been holding press-conferences and taking executive decisions,  wannabe-Ministers continue to be wrangling night-and-day for the plums of office — BUT THERE IS NO PARLIAMENT!

Today is the death-anniversary of Jawaharlal Nehru and last week was the death anniversary of  Rajiv Gandhi.

Nehru, whatever his faults and infirmities, was an outstanding parliamentarian and a believer in the Westminster model in particular.  He was intimately familiar with its  unpoken customs and unwritten laws.   He would have been completely appalled by the situation today where luminaries of the party that goes by the  same name as the one he had led are paying obeisance to his memory 45 years after his death but have failed to see the absurdity in having a Government in office with no new Parliament ten days after a month-long General Election was over!  (Incidentally, had he not left explicit instructions against any hero-worship  taking place of himself too?)

Rajiv knew his grandfather and had acquired a sense of noblesse oblige from him.  He too would have been appalled that the procedural business of government  had been simply  procrastinated over like this.

It surprises me that Dr Manmohan Singh, having been a post-graduate of Cambridge, having earned a doctorate from Oxford, and more recently having been awarded honorary doctorates from both Ancient Universities, should seem so unaware of the elements of the Westminster model of  constitutional jurisprudence which guides our polity too.

It is too late now and the mistakes have been made.   I hope his  new Government will  come to realise at some point and then keep in mind that our Executive receives political legitimacy from Parliament, not vice versa.   An Executive can hardly be legitimately in office until the  Parliament that is supposed to elect it has been sworn in.

As for our putative Opposition in the Parliament-yet-to-meet, it seems to have drawn a blank too, and eo ipso revealed its own constitutional backwardness and lethargy.

Subroto Roy

How tightly will organised Big Business be able to control economic policies this time?

The power of organised Big Business over New Delhi’s economic policies (whether Congress-led or BJP-led) was signalled by the presence in the audience at Rashtrapati Bhavan last week of several prominent lobbyists when Dr Manmohan Singh and his senior-most Cabinet colleagues were being sworn-in by the President of India. Why were such witnesses needed at such an auspicious national occasion?

Organised Big Business (both private sector and public sector) along with organised Big Labour (whose interests are represented most ably by New Delhi’s official communist parties like the CPI-M and CPI), are astutely aware of how best to advance their own economic interests; this usually gets assisted nicely enough through clever use of our comprador English-language TV, newspaper and magazine media. Shortly after the election results, lobbyists were all over commercial TV proposing things like FDI in insurance and airports etc– as if that was the meaning of the Sonia-Rahul mandate or were issues of high national priority. A typical piece of such “pretend-economics” appears in today’s business-press from a formerly Leftist Indian bureaucrat: “With its decisive victory, the new Manmohan Singh government should at last be able to implement the required second generation reforms. Their lineaments (sic) are well known and with the removal of the Left’s veto, many of those stalled in the legislature as well as those which were forestalled can now be implemented. These should be able to put India back on a 9-10 per cent per annum growth rate…”

Today’s business-press also reports that the new Government is planning to create a fresh “Disinvestment Ministry” and Dr Singh’s chief economic policy aide is “a frontrunner among the names short-listed to head the new ministry” with Cabinet rank.

Now if any enterprising doctoral student was to investigate the question, I think the evidence would show that I, and I alone – not even BR Shenoy or AD Shroff or Jagdish Bhagwati — may have been the first among Indian economists to have argued in favour of the privatisation of India’s public sector. I did so precisely 25 years ago in Pricing, Planning and Politics: A Study of Economic Distortions in India, which was so unusual for its time that it attracted the lead editorial of The Times of London on the day it was published May 29 1984, and had its due impact on Indian economic policy then and since, as has been described elsewhere here.  In 1990-1991 while with Rajiv Gandhi, I had floated an idea of literally giving away shares of the public sector to the public that owned it (as several other countries had been doing at that time), specifically perhaps giving them to the poorest panchayats in aid of their development.  In 2004-2005, upon returning to Britain after many years, I helped create the book Margaret Thatcher’s Revolution: How it Happened and What it Meant, and Margaret Thatcher if anyone was a paragon of privatisation.

That being said, I have to say I think a new Indian policy of creating a Ministry to privatise India’s public sector is probably a very BAD idea indeed in present circumstances — mainly because it will be driven by the interests of the organised Big Business lobbies that have so profoundly and subtly been able to control the New Delhi Government’s behaviour in recent decades.

Such lobbyist control is exercised often without the Government even realising or comprehending its parameters. For example, ask yourself: Is there any record anywhere of Dr Manmohan Singh, in his long career as a Government economist and then as a Rajya Sabha MP, having ever proposed before 2004-2005 that nuclear reactors were something vitally important to India’s future? And why do you suppose the most prominent Indian business lobby spent a million dollars and registered itself as an official lobbyist in Washington DC to promote the nuclear deal among American legislators? Because Big Business was feeling generous and altruistic towards the “energy security” of the ordinary people of India? Hardly.  Indian Big Business calculates and acts in its own interests, as is only to be expected under economic assumptions; those interests are frequently camouflaged by their lobbyist and media friends into seeming to be economic policy for the country as a whole.

Now our Government every year produces paper rupees and bank deposits in  practically unlimited amounts to pay for its practically unlimited deficit financing, and it has behaved thus over decades. Why we do not hear about this at all is because the most prominent Government economists themselves remain clueless — sometimes by choice, mostly by sheer ignorance — about the nature of the macroeconomic process that they are or have been part of.  (See my  “India’s Macroeconomics”, “The Dream Team: A Critique” etc elsewhere here). As for the Opposition’s economists, the less said about the CPI-M’s economists the better while the BJP, poor thing, has absolutely no economists at all!

Briefly speaking, Indian Big Business has acquired an acute sense of this long-term nominal/paper expansion of India’s economy, and as a result acts towards converting wherever possible its own hoards of paper rupees and rupee-denominated assets into more valuable portfolios for itself of real or durable assets, most conspicuously including hard-currency denominated assets, farm-land and urban real-estate, and, now, the physical assets of the Indian public sector. Such a path of trying to transform local domestic paper assets – produced unlimitedly by Government monetary and fiscal policy and naturally destined to depreciate — into real durable assets, is a privately rational course of action to follow in an inflationary economy.  It is not rocket-science  to realise the long-term path of the Indian rupee is downwards in comparison to the hard-currencies of the world – just compare our money supply growth and inflation rates with those of the rest of the world.

The Statesman of November 15 2006 had a lead editorial titled Government’s land-fraud: Cheating peasants in a hyperinflation-prone economy. It said:

“There is something fundamentally dishonourable about the way the Centre, the state of West Bengal and other state governments are treating the issue of expropriating peasants, farm-workers, petty shop-keepers etc of their small plots of land in the interests of promoters, industrialists and other businessmen. Singur may be but one example of a phenomenon being seen all over the country: Hyderabad, Karnataka, Kerala, Haryana, everywhere. So-called “Special Economic Zones” will merely exacerbate the problem many times over. India and its governments do not belong only to business and industrial lobbies, and what is good for private industrialists may or may not be good for India’s people as a whole. Economic development does not necessarily come to be defined by a few factories or high-rise housing complexes being built here or there on land that has been taken over by the Government, paying paper-money compensation to existing stakeholders, and then resold to promoters or industrialists backed by powerful political interest-groups on a promise that a few thousand new jobs will be created. One fundamental problem has to do with inadequate systems of land-description and definition, implementation and recording of property rights. An equally fundamental problem has to do with fair valuation of land owned by peasants etc. in terms of an inconvertible paper-money. Every serious economist knows that “land” is defined as that specific factor of production and real asset whose supply is fixed and does not increase in response to its price. Every serious economist also knows that paper-money is that nominal asset whose price can be made to catastrophically decline by a massive increase in its supply, i.e. by Government printing more of the paper it holds a monopoly to print. For Government to compensate people with paper-money it prints itself by valuing their land on the basis of an average of the price of the last few years, is for Government to cheat them of the fair present-value of the land. That present-value of land must be calculated in the way the present-value of any asset comes to be calculated, namely, by summing the likely discounted cash-flows of future values. And those future values should account for the likelihood of a massive future inflation causing decline in the value of paper-money in view of the fact we in India have a domestic public debt of some Rs. 30 trillion (Rs. 30 lakh crore) and counting, and money supply growth rates averaging 16-17% per annum. In fact, a responsible Government would, given the inconvertible nature of the rupee, have used foreign exchange or gold as the unit of account in calculating future-values of the land. India’s peasants are probably being cheated by their Government of real assets whose value is expected to rise, receiving nominal paper assets in compensation whose value is expected to fall.”

Mamata Banerjee started her famous protest fast-unto-death in Kolkata not long afterwards, riveting the nation’s attention in the winter of 2006-2007.

What goes for the government buying land on behalf of its businessman friends also goes, mutatis mutandis, for the public sector’s real assets being bought up by the private sector using domestic paper money in a potentially hyperinflationary economy.  If Dr Singh’s new Government wishes to see real public sector assets being sold, let the Government seek to value these assets not in inconvertible rupees which the Government itself has been producing in unlimited quantities but rather in forex or gold-units instead!

Today’s headline says “Short of cash, govt. plans to revive disinvestment ministry”. Big Business’s powerful lobbies will suggest  that real public assets must be sold  (to whom? to organised Big Business of course!) in order to solve the grave fiscal problems in an inflationary economy caused precisely by those grave  fiscal problems! What I said in 2002 at IndiaSeminar may still be found to apply: I said the BJP’s privatisation ideas “deserve to be condemned…because they have made themselves believe that the proceeds of selling the public sector should merely go into patching up the bleeding haemorrhage which is India’s fiscal and monetary situation… (w)hile…Congress were largely responsible for that haemorrhage to have occurred in the first place.”

If the new Government would like to know how to proceed more wisely, they need to read and grasp, in the book edited by myself and Professor John Clarke in 2004-2005, the chapter by Professor Patrick Minford on Margaret Thatcher’s fiscal and monetary policy (macroeconomics) before they read the chapter by Professor Martin Ricketts on Margaret Thatcher’s privatisation (microeconomics).  India’s fiscal and monetary or macroeconomic problems are far worse today than Britain’s were when Thatcher came in.

During the recent Election Campaign, I contrasted Dr Singh’s flattering praise in 2005 of the CPI-M’s Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee with Sonia Gandhi’s pro-Mamata line in 2009 saying the CPI-M had taken land away from the poor.  This may soon signal a new fault-line in the new Cabinet too on economic policy with respect to not only land but also public sector privatisation – with Dr Singh’s pro-Big Business acolytes on one side and Mamata Banerjee’s stance in favour of small-scale unorganised business and labour on the other.  Party heavyweights like Dr Singh himself and Sharad Pawar and Pranab Mukherjee will weigh in one side or the other with Sonia being asked in due course to referee.

I personally am delighted to see the New Rahul Gandhi deciding not to be in Government and to instead reflect further on the “common man” and “common woman” about whom I had described his father talking to me on September 18 1990 at his home. Certainly the “aam admi” is not someone to be found among India’s organised Big Business or organised Big Labour nor their paid lobbyists in the big cities.

Subroto Roy

Posted in Academic research, AD Shroff, Asia and the West, Big Business and Big Labour, BR Shenoy, Britain, Britain in India, British history, Economic Policy, Economic quackery, Economic Theory, Economics of exchange controls, Economics of Public Finance, Economics of real estate valuation, Financial Management, Financial markets, Foreign exchange controls, Government Budget Constraint, Government of India, India's Big Business, India's Banking, India's bureaucracy, India's Capital Markets, India's corporate finance, India's corporate governance, India's corruption, India's currency history, India's Economic History, India's Economy, India's Government Budget Constraint, India's Government Expenditure, India's Industry, India's inflation, India's Macroeconomics, India's Monetary & Fiscal Policy, India's nomenclatura, India's peasants, India's political lobbyists, India's Politics, India's pork-barrel politics, India's poverty, India's Public Finance, Inflation, Land and political economy, Macroeconomics, Mamata Banerjee, Manmohan Singh, Margaret Thatcher, Margaret Thatcher's Revolution, Martin Ricketts, Mendacity in politics, Microeconomics, Monetary Theory, Money and banking, Mumbai financial world, New Delhi, Patrick Minford, Political cynicism, Political Economy, Political mendacity, Political Science, Politics, Pork-barrel politics, Power-elites and nomenclatura, Practical wisdom, Principal-agent problem, Privatisation, Public Choice/Public Finance, Public property waste fraud, Rajiv Gandhi, Rational decisions, Singur and Nandigram, Sonia Gandhi, Statesmanship, The Statesman, The Times (London), University of Buckingham. Leave a Comment »

My 2009 prediction of the Sonia Congress election win

It is now coming up to be 3 pm Indian Standard Time on May 13, the last day of India’s 2009 General Elections, and there are two hours left for the polls to close.   I am happy to predict a big victory for the Congress Party, and Sonia Gandhi and her son Rahul will deserve congratulations for it.

How the victory takes shape is, I think, by their having won the median voter on both the economic and the secular-communal axes of Indian politics.  (See my 2008 published graph on the Median Voter Model in Indian politics, available elsewhere here).

I have met Sonia Gandhi once, in December 1991 at her home, where I gave her a tape of her husband’s conversations with me during the first Gulf War in 1991.   Her son and I met momentarily in her husband’s office in 1990-1991 but I do not recall any conversation.   I have had nothing to do with her Government.   Dr Manmohan Singh and I have met twice, once in Paris in the autumn of 1973 and once in Washington in September 1993; on the latter occasion, I was introduced to him and his key aides by Siddhartha Shankar Ray as the person on whose laptop the Congress manifesto of 1991 had been composed for Rajiv, something described elsewhere here.   (I also gave him then a copy of the published book that emerged from the University of  Hawaii perestroika-for-India project, Foundations of India’s Political Economy: Towards an Agenda for the 1990s, edited by myself and WE James.)  On the former occasion,  Dr Singh had kindly acceded to my father’s request to visit our then-home to advise me on economics before I started as a freshman undergraduate at the London School of Economics.

In May 2004 I was interviewed by BBC television in England and I praised the UPA in prospect — in comparison  to the horrors of the Vajpayee-Advani regime (including my personal experience of it, when their Education Minister had sent an astrology-believing acolyte to supposedly run a scientific/technical institute).

Since 2005, especially in the columns of The Statesman, I have dispensed rational criticism of the UPA Government as harshly as I have criticised the BJP/RSS and the Communists.  Principally, I believe they have got  some (perhaps most) much of their  economics (quite badly) wrong as well as their jurisprudence and foreign policy; they have also been willingly under the influence of the powerful organised lobbies and interest groups that populate our capital cities.

Even so, I think there is a large electoral victory in prospect for the Congress, and I send them my early congratulations.  They have done enough by way of political rhetoric and political reality to maintain or enhance their vote-share; their oppositions on either side have both failed badly. The BJP may make some marginal gains especially in Bihar but they have generally done enough to lose the day.  The CPM too will lose popularity especially in Bengal, and will never progress until they fire their JNU economists which they are never going to do.

So, Sonia-Rahul, well done!

But please try to improve your economics.

And, also, you simply must get Dr Manmohan Singh a seat in the Lok Sabha if he is to be PM — Ambedkar and Nehru and all their generation did not specify that India’s PM must be from the Lok Sabha because it was something totally OBVIOUS.

Subroto Roy

Postscript: Someone at a website has referred to my prediction above and remarked: “Perhaps the good doc is aware of the money in play”. The answer is no, I have absolutely no special information about any “money in play” on any side. My prediction is based on a layman’s observation of the campaign, as well as more specialised analysis of past voting data from the EC. In an earlier post, I pointed out the BJP had gotten some 17 million fewer votes than the Congress in 2004, and I asked if they had done enough to get enough of a net change in their favour. The answer I think is that they have not done so. To the contrary, I think there will be a quite large net change in favour of Congress thanks to a better-run and better-led campaign. Of course it is just a prediction that may be found to be incorrect.
SR

India’s 2009 General Elections: the advice of the late “George Eliot” (Mary Ann Evans, 1819-1880) to India’s voting public

It is constantly the task of practical wisdom not to say

“This is good, and I will have it,”

but to say

“This is the less of two unavoidable evils, and I will bear it.”

——— “Address to Working-Men by Felix Holt”,

George Eliot, Blackwood’s Magazine 1868

Democracy Database for the Largest Electorate Ever Seen in World History

In four days, on April 16 2009, one thousand seven hundred and seven officially recognized candidates, representing 161 political parties and including 770 Independents, are contesting the polls in 124 constituencies (out of a total of 543 constituencies), across 15 States and two Union Territories  in Phase 1 of the General Election to India’s 15th Lok Sabha.   Between 16 April and 7 May in Phases 2, 3 and 4, that number of candidates contesting  India’s  General Elections rises to at least 4,637, average age 46.1, from 261 political parties, including 291 women and 2118  Independents across more than 150 further constituencies.  By 13 May, Phase 5 will be over and all 543 constituencies shall have been covered.  The size of the registered electorate of potential voters under adult franchise is 383,566,479, the largest in human history.

Did you know that? Of course not. None of our juvenile TV stations and only-slightly-less-juvenile newspapers would have been able to give you such numbers even if they had tried to; they would barely know where to begin. Besides, our Election Commission too has become a  sclerotic bureaucracy like everything else to do with India’s governance; its website — now updated and improving slightly every day — provides a lot of irrelevancies along with providing  the very least modicum of  raw data logically necessary for the conduct of the election.

Ten years ago, just prior to the 13th Lok Sabha Elections, I, as part of my academic research as a “full professor” at an “Institution of National Importance”, created an Excel spreadsheet containing every single Lok Sabha constituency at the time. I later sent it on to the EC for its free use and distribution. (Some of my academic colleagues were surprised and suspicious as one of their principal goals in life was to obtain lucrative government “consulting” contracts wherever possible — doing things for free set a worrisome example despite the slogan of being supposedly “dedicated to the service of the nation”!). Nothing happened because the EC in particular and the Government of India in general did not then and have not now appeared keen to know how to use spreadsheets  like Excel properly, despite our claims of  India  being  an information-technology powerhouse!

I have now had to re-create that 1999 spreadsheet again for the 15th Lok Sabha Elections because there has been a major parliamentary exercise of what is called “redistricting” in some countries and “delimitation” here in India. Many constituencies have been merged or have disappeared while new ones have appeared.  Plus  numerous innovative techniques  and formulae have had to be used by me with vital free help from Excel Forum users as well as providers of free add-ins around the world, to whom grateful acknowledgment is made.

The processed data below is based entirely on the raw data available from the EC as of April 11 2009.  As the EC updates its raw data, so shall I seek to update this processed data.   There are definite errors in the EC data (e.g. one Independent candidate has been listed 3 times, while 19 people have been listed as being99 years old; more significantly there seems to be at least one constituency in which there is only one candidate, etc etc.)   Whatever errors exist in the raw data must be carried over to these data here, I am afraid.  But I will as I have said update this as the EC updates its raw data.  If there are errors in my processing, I do not know of them, so please check and recheck against the EC’s data if you wish to use these data operationally.  [Update 1800 hours Sunday April 12: the EC has reduced the number of candidates from 4637 to 4631 which presumably means some obvious slight errors have been corrected; it is still far short of having announced all candidates for all 543 constituencies, so the overall number is destined to rise and drastically quite soon — I hope before the first polls open on Thursday!].

The first two indicators are the EC’s way of identifying a constituency; then there is the name of the State or Union Territory in a two-digit code followed by the name of the constituency  in capitals, the date that polling is due to take place, and the list of the candidates and their parties.   I have made every effort to see no error has been added by me in addition to any errors that might exist in the EC’s data.  But please check and double check yourself, and I cannot  take responsibility for the accuracy of the information, especially as it is being done in “real time”.

This is being provided as a free public service for India’s ordinary people, citizens, candidates, students, observers etc.   Any broadcast or republication or academic use must acknowledge it appeared first at this site in my work: just link to this post or quote “Democracy Database for the Largest Electorate Ever Seen in World History by Dr Subroto Roy”, and use away.

Why do I think it is important for every candidate in every constituency in India’s 2009 General Elections to have his/her name known and to receive due respect and a small salute in HTML even for a brief moment?

Because that is what democracy in a free republic is supposed to be about. India is not a monarchy or a mansabdari of some sort, no matter what the many corrupt people inhabiting our Government and our capital cities might have made themselves believe.

Our juvenile, sensationalist, irresponsible  Delhi-centred media might realize someday that there are thousands of real people all over  this country that is India contesting these elections  seriously and trying to thus participate in the political process as best they can.  The Delhi-centred media  remain focused on the few dozen fake celebrities that they flatter,  cultivate and pander to. (We must wait to see what depths of journalistic depravity our  TV stations reach in  covering the so-called IPL in South Africa more seriously than they cover India’s 2009 General Elections!  What would MK Gandhi, who, a century ago, was still in South Africa, have said about such a twist of India’s fate?)

Here instead are India’s names and India’s lives and India’s places and India’s peoples and India’s political parties for all of us to see and understand and hence  see and understand ourselves better.

Here’s a cheer to all those party-political symbols for or  against which India’s hundreds of millions of voters will make their decisions:

A lady farmer carrying paddy on her head,

Aeroplane,

Almirah

Arrow

Axe

Balloon

Banana

Basket

Bat

Batsman

Battery Torch

Bead Necklace

Bell

Bicycle

Black Board

Boat

Book

Bow & Arrow

Boy & Girl

Bread

Brick

Bridge

Brief Case

Brush

Bungalow

Bus

Cake

Camera

Candles

Car

Carrot

Cart

Ceiling Fan

Chair

Clock

Coat

Cock

Coconut

Comb

Conch

Cot

Cup & Saucer

Diesel Pump

Dolli

Drum

Ears of Corn And Sickle

Electric Pole

Elephant

Flag with Three Stars

Flowers and Grass

Fork

Frock

Frying Pan

Gas Cylinder

Gas Stove

Glass Tumbler

Haldhar Within Wheel (Chakra Haldhar)

Hammer, Sickle and Star

Hand

Hand Pump

Harmonium

Hat

Hurricane Lamp

Hut

Ice Cream

Ink Pot & Pen

Iron

Jug

Kettle

Kite

Ladder

Lady Purse

Letter Box

Lion

Lock and Key

Lotus

Maize

Nagara

Not Alloted

Pressure Cooker

Railway Engine

Ring

Rising Sun

Road Roller

Saw

Scissors

Sewing Machine

Shuttle

Slate

Spade & Stoker

Spoon

Stool

Table

Table Lamp

Television

Tent

Two Daos Intersecting

Two Leaves

Violin

Walking Stick

Whistle….

Here’s a cheer then to all the thousands of candidates, average age 46.1, including those Independents, and the hundreds of political parties who go to the contest  beginning  April 16:

Aadivasi Sena Party

A-Chik National Congress(Democratic)

Adarsh Lok Dal

Advait Ishwasyam Congress

Ajeya Bharat Party

AJSU Party

Akhand Bharti

Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha

Akhil Bharatiya Ashok Sena

Akhil Bharatiya Congress Dal (Ambedkar)

Akhil Bharatiya Hind Kranti Party

Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh

Akhil Bharatiya Manav Seva Dal

Akhil Bhartiya Manavata Paksha

Akhil Bhartiya Sindhu Samajwadi Party

Akhila India Jananayaka Makkal Katchi (Dr. Issac)

All India Forward Bloc

All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen

All India Minorities Front

All India Trinamool Congress

All Jharkhand Students Union

Alpjan Samaj Party

Ambedkar National Congress

Ambedkar Samaj Party

Ambedkarist Republican Party

Amra Bangalee

Apna Dal

Arunachal Congress

Asom Gana Parishad

Assam United Democratic Front

Autonomous State Demand Committee

Awami Party

B. C. United Front

Backward Classes Democratic Party, J&K

Bahujan Republican Ekta Manch

Bahujan Samaj Party

Bahujan Samaj Party(Ambedkar-Phule)

Bahujan Sangharsh Party (Kanshiram)

Bahujan Shakty

Bahujan Uday Manch

Bajjikanchal Vikas Party

Bharat Punarnirman Dal

Bharat Vikas Morcha

Bharatheeya Sadharma Samsthapana Party

Bharatiya Bahujan Party

Bharatiya Eklavya Party

Bharatiya Grameen Dal

Bharatiya Jagaran Party

Bharatiya Jan Berojgar Chhatra Dal

Bharatiya Jan Shakti

Bharatiya Janata Party

Bharatiya Jantantrik Janta Dal

Bharatiya Lok Kalyan Dal

Bharatiya Loktantrik Party(Gandhi-Lohiawadi)

Bharatiya Minorities Suraksha Mahasangh

Bharatiya Momin Front

Bharatiya Natiional Janta Dal

Bharatiya Peoples Party

Bharatiya Pichhra Dal

Bharatiya Praja Paksha

Bharatiya Rashtriya Bahujan Samaj Vikas Party

Bharatiya Republican Paksha

Bharatiya Sadbhawna Samaj Party

Bharatiya Samaj Dal

Bharatiya Samta Samaj Party

Bharatiya Sarvodaya Kranti Party

Bharatiya Subhash Sena

Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

Biju Janata Dal

Bira Oriya Party

Bodaland Peoples Front

Buddhiviveki Vikas Party

Chandigarh Vikas Party

Chhattisgarh Vikas Party

Chhattisgarhi Samaj Party

Communist Party of India

Communist Party of India (Marxist)

Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

Democratic Party of India

Democratic Secular Party

Dharam Nirpeksh Dal

Duggar Pradesh Party

Eklavya Samaj Party

Gondvana Gantantra Party

Gondwana Mukti Sena

Great India Party

Hill State People’s Democratic Party

Hindustan Janta Party

Indian Christian Secular Party

Indian Justice Party

Indian National Congress

Indian Peace Party

Indian Peoples Forward Block

Indian Union Muslim League

Jaganmay Nari Sangathan

Jago Party

Jai Bharat Samanta Party

Jai Chhattisgarh Party

Jai Vijaya Bharathi Party

Jammu & Kashmir National Panthers Party

Jammu & Kashmir Peoples Democratic Party

Jan Samanta Party

Jan Surajya Shakti

Jana Hitkari Party

Janata Dal (Secular)

Janata Dal (United)

Janata Party

Janvadi Party(Socialist)

Jawan Kisan Morcha

Jharkhand Disom Party

Jharkhand Jan Morcha

Jharkhand Janadikhar Manch

Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

Jharkhand Party

Jharkhand Party (Naren)

Jharkhand PeopleÂ’S Party

Jharkhand Vikas Dal

Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)

Kalinga Sena

Kamtapur Progressive Party

Kannada Chalavali Vatal Paksha

Karnataka Rajya Ryota Sangha

Karnataka Thamizhar Munnetra Kazhagam

Kerala Congress

Kerala Congress (M)

Kosal Kranti Dal

Kosi Vikas Party

Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena

Krantikari Samyavadi Party

Krantisena Maharashtra

Laghujan Samaj Vikas Party

Lal Morcha

Lok Bharati

Lok Dal

Lok Jan Shakti Party

Lok Jan Vikas Morcha

Lok Satta Party

Lok Vikas Party

Lokpriya Samaj Party

Loksangram

Loktanrik Sarkar Party

Loktantrik Samajwadi Party

Loktantrik Samata Dal

Mahagujarat Janta Party

Maharashtra Navnirman sena

Maharashtrawadi Gomantak

Mahila Adhikar Party

Mana Party

Manav Mukti Morcha

Manipur People’s Party

Marxist Communist Party of India (S.S. Srivastava)

Marxist Co-Ordination

Maulik Adhikar Party

Meghalaya Democratic Party

Moderate Party

Momin Conference

Muslim League Kerala State Committee

Muslim Majlis Uttar Pradesh

Nagaland Peoples Front

National Development Party

National Lokhind Party

National Loktantrik Party

National Secular Party

National Youth Party

Nationalist Congress Party

Navbharat Nirman Party

Nelopa(United)

Orissa Mukti Morcha

Party for Democratic Socialism

Paschim Banga Rajya Muslim League

Peace Party

Peoples Democratic Alliance

Peoples Democratic Forum

People’s Democratic Front

Peoples Guardian

People’s Party of Arunachal

Peoples Republican Party

Prabuddha Republican Party

Pragatisheel Manav Samaj Party

Praja Bharath Party

Praja Rajyam Party

Prajatantrik Samadhan Party

Proutist Sarva Samaj

Proutist Sarva Samaj Party

Purvanchal Rajya Banao Dal

Pyramid Party of India

Rajyadhikara Party

Rashtra Sewa Dal

Rashtravadi Aarthik Swatantrata Dal

Rashtravadi Communist Party

Rashtravadi Janata Party

Rashtrawadi Sena

Rashtriya Agraniye Dal

Rashtriya Bahujan Congress Party

Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

Rashtriya Gondvana Party

Rashtriya Janata Dal

Rashtriya Jan-Jagram Morcha

Rashtriya Jan-vadi Party (Krantikari)

Rashtriya Kranti Party

Rashtriya Krantikari Janata Party

Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

Rashtriya Lok Dal

Rashtriya Lokhit Party

Rashtriya Lokwadi Party

Rashtriya Machhua Samaj Party

Rashtriya Mazdoor Ekta Party

Rashtriya Pragati Party

Rashtriya Praja Congress (Secular)

Rashtriya Raksha Dal

Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (United)

Rashtriya Samanta Dal

Rashtriya Swabhimaan Party

Rayalaseema Rashtra Samithi

Republican Paksha (Khoripa)

Republican Party of India

Republican Party of India (A)

Republican Party of India (Democratic )

Republican Party of India (Khobragade)

Republican Presidium Party of India

Republician Party of India Ektawadi

Revolutionary Communist Party of India (Rasik Bhatt)

Revolutionary Socialist Party

Samajik Jantantrik Party

Samajtantric Party of India

Samajwadi Jan Parishad

Samajwadi Janata Party (Rashtriya)

Samajwadi Party

Samata Party

Samruddha Odisha

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Party

Sarvodaya Karnataka Paksha

Sarvodaya Party

Savarn Samaj Party

Save Goa Front

Shakti Sena (Bharat Desh)

Shivrajya Party

Shivsena

Shoshit Samaj Dal

Socialist Party (Lohia)

Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

Sunder Samaj Party

Swabhimani Paksha

Swarajya Party Of India

Swatantra Bharat Paksha

Telangana Rashtra Samithi

Telugu Desam

The Humanist Party of India

Trilinga Praja Pragati Party

United Communist Party of India

United Democratic Party

United Goans Democratic Party

United Women Front

Uttar Pradesh Republican Party

Vanchit Jamat Party

Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katch

Vikas Party

Vishva Hindustani Sangathan

Yuva Vikas Party … and many many more….

S01    1    AP    ADILABAD    16-Apr-09    1    ADE TUKARAM    M    55    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    KOTNAK RAMESH    M    39    Indian National Congress

3    RATHOD RAMESH    M    43    Telugu Desam

4    RATHOD SADASHIV NAIK    M    50    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    MESRAM NAGO RAO    M    59    Praja Rajyam Party

6    ATHRAM LAXMAN RAO    M    47    Independent

7    GANTA PENTANNA    M    36    Independent

8    NETHAVAT RAMDAS    M    39    Independent

9    BANKA SAHADEVU    M    55    Independent

S01    2    AP    PEDDAPALLE    16-Apr-09    1    GAJJELA SWAMY    M    49    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    GOMASA SRINIVAS    M    41    Telangana Rashtra Samithi

3    MATHANGI NARSIAH    M    64    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    DR.G.VIVEKANAND    M    51    Indian National Congress

5    AREPELLI DAVID RAJU    M    36    Praja Rajyam Party

6    KRISHNA SABBALI    M    39    Marxist Communist Party of India (S.S. Srivastava)

7    AMBALA MAHENDAR    M    38    Independent

8    A. KAMALAMMA    F    36    Independent

9    GORRE RAMESH    M    42    Independent

10    NALLALA KANUKAIAH    M    39    Independent

11    B. MALLAIAH    M    32    Independent

12    K. RAJASWARI    F    38    Independent

13    D. RAMULU    M    51    Independent

14    G.VINAY KUMAR    M    51    Independent

15    S.LAXMAIAH    M    33    Independent

S01    3    AP    KARIMNAGAR    16-Apr-09    1    CHANDUPATLA JANGA REDDY    M    75    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    PONNAM PRABHAKAR    M    41    Indian National Congress

3    VINOD KUMAR BOINAPALLY    M    49    Telangana Rashtra Samithi

4    VIRESHAM NALIMELA    M    58    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    RAGULA RAMULU    M    40    Republican Party of India (A)

6    LINGAMPALLI SRINIVAS REDDY    M    39    Marxist Communist Party of India (S.S. Srivastava)

7    VELICHALA RAJENDER RAO    M    46    Praja Rajyam Party

8    T. SRIMANNARAYANA    M    68    Pyramid Party of India

9    K. PRABHAKAR    M    43    Independent

10    KORIVI VENUGOPAL    M    46    Independent

11    BARIGE GATTAIAH YADAV    M    32    Independent

12    GADDAM RAJI REDDY    M    48    Independent

13    PANAKANTI SATISH KUMAR    M    46    Independent

14    PEDDI RAVINDER    M    29    Independent

15    B. SURESH    M    32    Independent

S01    4    AP    NIZAMABAD    16-Apr-09    1    DR. BAPU REDDY    M    59    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    BIGALA GANESH GUPTA    M    39    Telangana Rashtra Samithi

3    MADHU YASKHI GOUD    M    50    Indian National Congress

4    YEDLA RAMU    M    53    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    DUDDEMPUDI SAMBASIVA RAO CHOUDARY    M    62    Lok Satta Party

6    P.VINAY KUMAR    M    51    Praja Rajyam Party

7    DR. V.SATHYANARAYANA MURTHY    M    51    Pyramid Party of India

8    S. SUJATHA    F    43    Trilinga Praja Pragati Party

9    AARIS MOHAMMED    M    46    Independent

10    KANDEM PRABHAKAR    M    44    Independent

11    GADDAM SRINIVAS    M    47    Independent

12    RAPELLY SRINIVAS    M    34    Independent

S01    5    AP    ZAHIRABAD    16-Apr-09    1    CHENGAL BAGANNA    M    66    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    M.VISHNU MUDIRAJ    M    35    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    SYED YOUSUF ALI    M    54    Telangana Rashtra Samithi

4    SURESH KUMAR SHETKAR    M    46    Indian National Congress

5    BENJAMIN RAJU    M    39    Indian Justice Party

6    MALKAPURAM SHIVA KUMAR    M    43    Praja Rajyam Party

7    MALLESH RAVINDER REDDY    M    39    Lok Satta Party

8    CHITTA RAJESHWAR RAO    M    45    Independent

9    POWAR SINGH HATTI SINGH    M    36    Independent

10    BASAVA RAJ PATIL    M    39    Independent

S01    6    AP    MEDAK    16-Apr-09    1    NARENDRANATH .C    M    45    Indian National Congress

2    P. NIROOP REDDY    M    50    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    VIJAYA SHANTHI .M    F    43    Telangana Rashtra Samithi

4    Y. SHANKAR GOUD    M    44    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    KOVURI PRABHAKAR    M    51    Pyramid Party of India

6    KHAJA QUAYUM ANWAR    M    43    Praja Rajyam Party

7    D. YADESHWAR    M    46    Bahujan Samaj Party(Ambedkar-Phule)

8    K. SUDHEER REDDY    M    37    Lok Satta Party

9    KUNDETI RAVI    M    32    Independent

S01    7    AP    MALKAJGIRI    16-Apr-09    1    NALLU INDRASENA REDDY    M    56    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    M.BABU RAO PADMA SALE    M    52    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    BHEEMSEN.T    M    60    Telugu Desam

4    SARVEY SATYANARAYANA    M    54    Indian National Congress

5    S.D.KRISHNA MURTHY    M    51    Trilinga Praja Pragati Party

6    T.DEVENDER GOUD    M    56    Praja Rajyam Party

7    NARENDER KUMBALA    M    39    Bharat Punarnirman Dal

8    PRATHANI RAMAKRISHNA    M    42    Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

9    LION C FRANCIS MJF    M    56    Samajwadi Party

10    N V RAMA REDDY    M    54    Pyramid Party of India

11    DR.LAVU RATHAIAH    M    56    Lok Satta Party

12    KANTE KANAKAIAH GANGAPUTHRA    M    63    Independent

13    KOYAL KAR BHOJARAJ    M    35    Independent

14    CHENURU VENKATA SUBBA RAO    M    52    Independent

15    JAJULA BHASKAR    M    34    Independent

16    LT.COL. (RETD). DUSERLA PAPARAIDU    M    62    Independent

17    MD.MANSOORALI    M    31    Independent

18    S.VICTOR    M    40    Independent

19    K.SRINIVASA RAJU    M    44    Independent

S01    8    AP    SECUNDRABAD    16-Apr-09    1    ANJAN KUMAR YADAV M    M    47    Indian National Congress

2    BANDARU DATTATREYA    M    61    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    M. D. MAHMOOD ALI    M    55    Telangana Rashtra Samithi

4    M. VENKATESH    M    32    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    SRINIVASA SUDHISH RAMBHOTLA    M    40    Telugu Desam

6    ABDUS SATTAR MUJAHED    M    41    Muslim League Kerala State Committee

7    IMDAD JAH    M    64    Ambedkar National Congress

8    P. DAMODER REDDY    M    48    Pyramid Party of India

9    DR. DASOJU SRAVAN KUMAR    M    41    Praja Rajyam Party

10    S. DEVAIAH    M    59    Trilinga Praja Pragati Party

11    C.V.L. NARASIMHA RAO    M    51    Lok Satta Party

12    DR .POLISHETTY RAM MOHAN    M    57    Samata Party

13    MOHD. OSMAN QURESHEE    M    35    Ajeya Bharat Party

14    SHIRAZ KHAN    F    39    United Women Front

15    ASEERVADAM LELLAPALLI    M    51    Independent

16    AMBATI KRISHNA MURTHY    M    50    Independent

17    B. GOPALA KRISHNA    M    42    Independent

18    DEVI DAS RAO GHODKE    M    63    Independent

19    BABER ALI KHAN    M    51    Independent

20    M. BHAGYA MATHA    F    38    Independent

21    CH. MURAHARI    M    49    Independent

22    G. RAJAIAH    M    48    Independent

23    K. SRINIVASA CHARI    M    49    Independent

S01    9    AP    HYDERABAD    16-Apr-09    1    ZAHID ALI KHAN    M    66    Telugu Desam

2    P. LAXMAN RAO GOUD    M    55    Indian National Congress

3    SATISH AGARWAL    M    38    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    SAMY MOHAMMED    M    29    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    ASADUDDIN OWAISI    M    41    All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen

6    S. GOPAL SINGH    M    34    Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh

7    TAHER KAMAL KHUNDMIRI    M    52    Janata Dal (Secular)

8    FATIMA .A    F    41    Praja Rajyam Party

9    P. VENKATESWARA RAO    M    58    Pyramid Party of India

10    D. SURENDER    M    36    Trilinga Praja Pragati Party

11    AL-KASARY MOULLIM MOHSIN HUSSAIN    M    33    Independent

12    ALTAF AHMED KHAN    M    43    Independent

13    M.A. QUDDUS GHORI    M    43    Independent

14    ZAHID ALI KHAN    M    26    Independent

15    M.A. BASITH    M    55    Independent

16    MD. OSMAN    M    43    Independent

17    B. RAVI YADAV    M    33    Independent

18    N.L. SRINIVAS    M    31    Independent

19    M.A. SATTAR    M    29    Independent

20    D. SADANAND    M    45    Independent

21    SYED ABDUL GAFFTER    M    51    Independent

22    SARDAR SINGH    M    62    Independent

23    M.A. HABEEB    M    31    Independent

S01    10    AP    CHELVELLA    16-Apr-09    1    JAIPAL REDDY SUDINI    M    67    Indian National Congress

2    A.P.JITHENDER REDDY    M    54    Telugu Desam

3    BADDAM BAL REDDY    M    64    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    C.SRINIVAS RAO    M    39    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    KASANI GNANESHWAR    M    54    Mana Party

6    KUMMARI GIRI    M    28    Pyramid Party of India

7    DASARA SARALA DEVI    F    39    Marxist Communist Party of India (S.S. Srivastava)

8    DR.B.RAGHUVEER REDDY    M    42    Lok Satta Party

9    SAMA SRINIVASULU    M    34    Great India Party

10    S.MALLA REDDY    M    43    Independent

11    G.MALLESHAM GOUD    M    32    Independent

12    RAMESHWARAM JANGAIAH    M    58    Independent

13    LAXMINARAYANA    M    27    Independent

14    VENKATRAM NAIK    M    27    Independent

15    SAYAMOOLA NARSIMULU    M    30    Independent

S01    11    AP    MAHBUBNAGAR    16-Apr-09    1    KUCHAKULLA YADAGIRI REDDY    M    51    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    K. CHANDRASEKHAR RAO    M    55    Telangana Rashtra Samithi

3    DEVARAKONDA VITTAL RAO    M    57    Indian National Congress

4    PALEM SUDARSHAN GOUD    M    42    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    ABDUL KAREEM KHAJA MOHAMMAD    M    50    Lok Satta Party

6    ASIRVADAM    M    35    Great India Party

7    KOLLA VENKATESH MADIGA    M    37    Trilinga Praja Pragati Party

8    GUNDALA VIJAYALAKSHMI    F    61    Pyramid Party of India

9    B. BALRAJ GOUD    M    44    Mana Party

10    MUNISWAMY.C.R    M    32    Samajwadi Janata Party (Rashtriya)

11    USHAN SATHYAMMA    F    32    Independent

12    USAIN RANGAMMA    F    50    Independent

13    YETTI CHINNA YENKAIAH    M    47    Independent

14    YETTI LINGAIAH    M    52    Independent

15    KANDUR KURMAIAH    M    56    Independent

16    KARRE JANGAIAH    M    29    Independent

17    GANGAPURI RAVINDAR GOUD    M    28    Independent

18    GAJJA NARSIMULU    M    35    Independent

19    CHENNAMSETTY DASHARATHA RAMULU HOLEA DASARI    M    31    Independent

20    M.A. JABBAR    M    39    Independent

21    DEPALLY MAISAIAH    M    27    Independent

22    DEPALLY SAYANNA    M    47    Independent

23    K. NARSIMULU    M    52    Independent

24    NAGENDER REDDY. K    M    49    Independent

25    PANDU    M    29    Independent

26    BUDIGA JANGAM LAXMAMMA    F    30    Independent

27    MOHAMMAD GHOUSE MOINUDDIN    M    76    Independent

28    MALA JANGILAMMA    F    50    Independent

29    RAJESH NAIK    M    29    Independent

30    RAIKANTI RAMADAS MADIGA    M    40    Independent

31    V. VENKATESHWARLU    M    32    Independent

32    B. SEENAIAH GOUD    M    62    Independent

S01    12    AP    NAGARKURNOOL    16-Apr-09    1    GUVVALA BALARAJU    M    31    Telangana Rashtra Samithi

2    TANGIRALA PARAMJOTHI    M    50    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    DR. MANDA JAGANNATH    M    57    Indian National Congress

4    DR. T. RATNAKARA    M    50    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    DEVANI SATYANARAYANA    M    39    Praja Rajyam Party

6    S.P.FERRY ROY    M    27    Pyramid Party of India

7    G. VIDYASAGAR    M    60    Lok Satta Party

8    ANAPOSALA VENKATESH    M    27    Independent

9    N. KURUMAIAH    M    27    Independent

10    BUDDULA SRINIVAS    M    35    Independent

11    A.V. SHIVA KUMAR    M    42    Independent

12    SIRIGIRI MANNEM    M    36    Independent

13    HANUMANTHU    M    28    Independent

S01    13    AP    NALGONDA    16-Apr-09    1    GUTHA SUKENDER REDDY    M    55    Indian National Congress

2    NAZEERUDDIN    M    55    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    VEDIRE SRIRAM REDDY    M    39    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    SURAVARAM SUDHAKAR REDDY    M    67    Communist Party of India

5    A. NAGESHWAR RAO    M    59    Pyramid Party of India

6    PADURI KARUNA    F    58    Praja Rajyam Party

7    DAIDA LINGAIAH    M    51    Independent

8    MD. NAZEEMUDDIN    M    40    Independent

9    BOLUSANI KRISHNAIAH    M    45    Independent

10    BOLLA KARUNAKAR    M    33    Independent

11    MARRY NEHEMIAH    M    55    Independent

12    YALAGANDULA RAMU    M    41    Independent

13    K.V.SRINIVASA CHARYULU    M    30    Independent

14    SHAIK AHMED    M    57    Independent

S01    14    AP    BHONGIR    16-Apr-09    1    KOMATIREDDY RAJ GOPAL REDDY    M    41    Indian National Congress

2    CHINTHA SAMBA MURTHY    M    50    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    NOMULA NARSIMHAIAH    M    49    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

4    SIDDHARTHA PHOOLEY    M    39    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    CHANDRA MOULI GANDAM    M    48    Praja Rajyam Party

6    PALLA PRABHAKAR REDDY    M    64    Pyramid Party of India

7    RACHA SUBHADRA REDDY    F    59    Lok Satta Party

8    GUMMI BAKKA REDDY    M    75    Independent

9    POOSA BALA KISHAN BESTA    M    35    Independent

10    PERUKA ANJAIAH    M    46    Independent

11    MAMIDIGALLA JOHN BABU    M    40    Independent

12    MEDI NARSIMHA    M    31    Independent

13    RUPANI RAMESH VADDERA    M    31    Independent

14    SANGU MALLAYYA    M    66    Independent

15    SIRUPANGI RAMULU    M    55    Independent

S01    15    AP    WARANGAL    16-Apr-09    1    JAYAPAL. V    M    63    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    DOMMATI SAMBAIAH    M    45    Telugu Desam

3    RAJAIAH SIRICILLA    M    55    Indian National Congress

4    RAMAGALLA PARAMESHWAR    M    55    Telangana Rashtra Samithi

5    LALAIAH P    M    65    Bahujan Samaj Party

6    ONTELA MONDAIAH    M    58    Pyramid Party of India

7    DR. CHANDRAGIRI RAJAMOULY    M    49    Praja Rajyam Party

8    BALLEPU VENKAT NARSINGA RAO    M    37    Lok Satta Party

9    KANNAM VENKANNA    M    32    Independent

10    KRISHNADHI SRILATHA    F    33    Independent

11    SOMAIAH GANAPURAM    M    39    Independent

12    DAMERA MOGILI    M    34    Independent

13    DUBASI NARSING    M    46    Independent

14    PAKALA DEVADANAM    M    74    Independent

15    D. SREEDHAR RAO    M    37    Independent

S01    16    AP    MAHABUBABAD    16-Apr-09    1    KUNJA SRINIVASA RAO    M    31    Communist Party of India

2    GUMMADI PULLAIAH    M    58    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    B. DILIP    M    35    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    P. BALRAM    M    45    Indian National Congress

5    D.T. NAIK    M    61    Praja Rajyam Party

6    PODEM SAMMAIAH    M    31    Pyramid Party of India

7    BANOTH MOLCHAND    M    60    Lok Satta Party

8    KALTHI VEERASWAMY    M    52    Independent

9    KECHELA RANGA REDDY    M    44    Independent

10    DATLA NAGESWAR RAO    M    42    Independent

11    PADIGA YERRAIAH    M    64    Independent

12    P. SATYANARAYANA    M    32    Independent

S01    17    AP    KHAMMAM    16-Apr-09    1    KAPILAVAI RAVINDER    M    45    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    THONDAPU VENKATESWARA RAO    M    30    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    NAMA NAGESWARA RAO    M    50    Telugu Desam

4    RENUKA CHOWDHURY    F    54    Indian National Congress

5    JALAGAM HEMAMALINI    F    40    Praja Rajyam Party

6    JUPELLI SATYANARAYANA    M    61    Lok Satta Party

7    MANUKONDA RAGHURAM PRASAD    M    55    Pyramid Party of India

8    SHAIK MADAR SAHEB    M    40    Trilinga Praja Pragati Party

9    AVULA VENKATESWARLU    M    45    Independent

10    CHANDA LINGAIAH    M    58    Independent

11    DANDA LINGAIAH    M    59    Independent

12    BANOTH LAXMA NAIK    M    52    Independent

13    MALLAVARAPU JEREMIAH    M    63    Independent

S01    18    AP    ARUKU    16-Apr-09    1    KISHORE CHANDRA SURYANARAYANA DEO VYRICHERLA    M    62    Indian National Congress

2    KURUSA BOJJAIAH    M    56    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    GADUGU BALLAYYA DORA    M    38    Rashtriya Janata Dal

4    MIDIYAM BABU RAO    M    58    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

5    LAKE RAJA RAO    M    50    Bahujan Samaj Party

6    MEENAKA SIMHACHALAM    M    43    Praja Rajyam Party

7    VADIGALA PENTAYYA    M    56    Lok Satta Party

8    APPA RAO KINJEDI    M    48    Independent

9    ARIKA GUMPA SWAMY    M    60    Independent

10    ILLA RAMI REDDY    M    54    Independent

11    JAYALAKSHMI SHAMBUDU    F    39    Independent

S01    19    AP    SRIKAKULAM    16-Apr-09    1    YERRNNAIDU KINJARAPU    M    50    Telugu Desam

2    KILLI KRUPA RANI    F    47    Indian National Congress

3    TANKALA SUDHAKARA RAO    M    57    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    DUPPALA RAVINDARA BABU    M    38    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    KALYANI VARUDU    F    29    Praja Rajyam Party

6    NANDA PRASADA RAO    M    37    Pyramid Party of India

S01    20    AP    VIZIANAGARAM    16-Apr-09    1    APPALA NAIDU KONDAPALLI    M    41    Telugu Desam

2    GOTTAPU CHINAMNAIDU    M    56    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    JHANSI LAXMI BOTCHA    F    45    Indian National Congress

4    SANYASI RAJU PAKALAPATI    M    51    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    KIMIDI GANAPATHI RAO    M    52    Praja Rajyam Party

6    LUNKARAN JAIN    M    60    Pyramid Party of India

7    DATTLA SATYA APPALA SIVANANDA RAJU    M    34    Lok Satta Party

8    VENKATA SATYA NARAYANA RAGHUMANDA    M    28    Bharatiya Sadbhawna Samaj Party

9    MAHESWARA RAO VARRI    M    35    Independent

S01    21    AP    VISAKHAPATNAM    16-Apr-09    1    I.M.AHMED    M    41    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    DAGGUBATI PURANDESWARI    F    49    Indian National Congress

3    DR.M.V.V.S.MURTHI    M    70    Telugu Desam

4    D.V.SUBBARAO    M    76    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    PALLA SRINIVASA RAO    M    40    Praja Rajyam Party

6    BETHALA KEGIYA RANI    F    26    Bahujan Samaj Party(Ambedkar-Phule)

7    D.BHARATHI    F    53    Pyramid Party of India

8    D.V.RAMANA (VASU MASTER)    M    37    Trilinga Praja Pragati Party

9    RAMESH LANKA    M    49    Bharatheeya Sadharma Samsthapana Party

10    M.T.VENKATESWARALU    M    42    Lok Satta Party

11    APPARAO GOLAGANA    M    46    Independent

12    BANDAM VENKATA RAO YADAV    M    32    Independent

13    YADDANAPUDI RANGARAO    M    78    Independent

14    YALAMANCHILI PRASAD    M    54    Independent

15    RANGARAJU KALIDINDI    M    46    Independent

S01    22    AP    ANAKAPALLI    16-Apr-09    1    APPA RAO KIRLA    M    57    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    NOOKARAPU SURYA PRAKASA RAO    M    50    Telugu Desam

3    BHEEMISETTI NAGESWARARAO    M    41    Rashtriya Janata Dal

4    VENKATA RAMANA BABU PILLA    M    35    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    SABBAM HARI    M    55    Indian National Congress

6    ALLU ARAVIND    M    62    Praja Rajyam Party

7    PULAMARASETTI VENKATA RAMANA    M    28    Pyramid Party of India

8    BOYINA NAGESWARA RAO    M    52    Janata Dal (United)

9    NANDA GOPAL GANDHAM    M    60    Independent

10    PATHALA SATYA RAO    M    46    Independent

S02    1    AR    ARUNACHAL WEST    16-Apr-09    1    KIREN RIJIJU    M    37    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    TAKAM SANJOY    M    42    Indian National Congress

3    TABA TAKU    M    25    Lok Bharati

4    SUBU KECHI    M    36    Independent

S02    2    AR    ARUNACHAL EAST    16-Apr-09    1    LOWANGCHA WANGLAT    M    66    Arunachal Congress

2    NINONG ERING    M    50    Indian National Congress

3    TAPIR GAO    M    48    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    DR. SAMSON BORANG    M    33    People’s Party of Arunachal

S03    1    AS    KARIMGANJ    16-Apr-09    1    RAJESH MALLAH    M    43    Assam United Democratic Front

2    LALIT MOHAN SUKLABAIDYA    M    68    Indian National Congress

3    SUDHANGSHU DAS    M    41    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    UTTAM NOMOSUDRA    M    34    Independent

5    JOY DAS    M    37    Independent

6    DEBASISH DAS    M    36    Independent

7    PROBHASH CH. SARKAR    M    36    Independent

8    BIJON ROY    M    35    Independent

9    BIJOY MALAKAR    M    42    Independent

10    MALATI ROY    F    42    Independent

11    MILON SINGHA    M    42    Independent

12    RANJAN NAMASUDRA    M    41    Independent

13    RAJESH CHANDRA ROY    M    29    Independent

14    SITAL PRASAD DUSAD    M    55    Independent

15    HIMANGSHU KUMAR DAS    M    28    Independent

S03    2    AS    SILCHAR    16-Apr-09    1    KABINDRA PURKAYASTHA    M    74    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    DIPAK BHATTACHARJEE    M    69    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

3    BADRUDDIN AJMAL    M    54    Assam United Democratic Front

4    SONTOSH MOHAN DEV    M    75    Indian National Congress

5    KANTIMOY DEB    M    60    Independent

6    CHANDAN RABIDAS    M    34    Independent

7    JAYANTA MALLICK    M    36    Independent

8    JOY SUNDAR DAS    M    38    Independent

9    NAGENDRA CHANDRA DAS    M    28    Independent

10    NAZRUL HAQUE MAZARBHUIYAN    M    36    Independent

11    NABADWIP DAS    M    58    Independent

12    PIJUSH KANTI DAS    M    38    Independent

13    MANISH BHATTACHARJEE    M    62    Independent

14    YOGENDRA KUMAR SINGH    M    40    Independent

15    SUBIR DEB    M    41    Independent

16    SUMIT ROY    M    33    Independent

S03    3    AS    AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT    16-Apr-09    1    KULENDRA DAULAGUPU    M    36    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    BIREN SINGH ENGTI    M    64    Indian National Congress

3    HIDDHINATH RONGPI    M    45    Nationalist Congress Party

4    ELWIN TERON    M    48    Autonomous State Demand Committee

5    DR. JAYANTA RONGPI    M    54    Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

6    KABON TIMUNGPI    F    56    Independent

S04    17    BR    GOPALGANJ    16-Apr-09    1    ANIL KUMAR    M    41    Rashtriya Janata Dal

2    JANAK RAM    M    37    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    PURNMASI RAM    M    52    Janata Dal (United)

4    RAMAI RAM    M    66    Indian National Congress

5    MADHU BHARTI    F    39    Loktantrik Samata Dal

6    RAM KUMAR MANJHI    M    30    Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

7    RAMASHANKAR RAM    M    43    Rashtriya Jan-Jagram Morcha

8    SATYADEO RAM    M    39    Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

9    ASHA DEVI    F    46    Independent

10    DINANATH MANJHI    M    31    Independent

11    DHARMENDRA KUMAR HAZRA    M    41    Independent

12    BANITHA BAITHA    F    25    Independent

13    RAJESH KUMAR RAM    M    28    Independent

14    RAM SURAT RAM    M    42    Independent

15    SHAMBHU DOM    M    41    Independent

16    SURENDRA PASWAN    M    28    Independent

S04    18    BR    SIWAN    16-Apr-09    1    PARASH NATH PATHAK    M    60    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    BRISHIN PATEL    M    60    Janata Dal (United)

3    VIJAY SHANKER DUBEY    M    60    Indian National Congress

4    HENA SHAHAB    F    36    Rashtriya Janata Dal

5    AMAR NATH YADAV    M    44    Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

6    ASWANI KR. VERMA    M    28    Indian Justice Party

7    MADHURI PANDAY    F    35    Samajik Jantantrik Party

8    LAL BABU TIWARI    M    55    Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

9    UMESH TIWARY    M    30    Independent

10    OM PRAKASH YADAV    M    43    Independent

11    NIDHI KIRTI    F    26    Independent

12    PRABHU NATH MALI    M    26    Independent

13    DR. MUNESHWAR PRASAD    M    68    Independent

14    RAJENDRA KUMAR    M    36    Independent

15    SHAMBHU NATH PRASAD    M    60    Independent

S04    19    BR    MAHARAJGANJ    16-Apr-09    1    UMA SHANAKER SINGH    M    61    Rashtriya Janata Dal

2    TARKESHWAR SINGH    M    51    Indian National Congress

3    PRABHU NATH SINGH    M    56    Janata Dal (United)

4    RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA    M    54    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    RAMESH SINGH KUSHWAHA    M    59    Loktantrik Samata Dal

6    SATYENDRA KR. SAHANI    M    41    Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

7    GAUTAM PRASAD    M    30    Independent

8    DHURENDRA RAM    M    47    Independent

9    NAYAN PRASAD    M    53    Independent

10    PRADEEP MANJHI    M    32    Independent

11    BANKE BIHARI SINGH    M    25    Independent

12    RAJESH KUMAR SINGH    M    26    Independent

13    BREENDA PATHAK    M    63    Independent

S04    20    BR    SARAN    16-Apr-09    1    RAJIV PRATAP RUDY    M    48    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    LALU PRASAD    M    60    Rashtriya Janata Dal

3    SALIM PERWEZ    M    47    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    SANTOSH PATEL    M    39    Loktantrik Samata Dal

5    SOHEL AKHATAR    M    33    Bharatiya Momin Front

6    KUMAR BALRAM SINGH    M    56    Independent

7    DHUPENDRA SINGH    M    33    Independent

8    RAJKUMAR RAI    M    33    Independent

9    RAJAN HRISHIKESH CHANDRA    M    25    Independent

10    RAJARAM SAHANI    M    49    Independent

11    LAL BABU RAY    M    46    Independent

12    SHEO DAS SINGH    M    74    Independent

S04    32    BR    ARRAH    16-Apr-09    1    MEENA SINGH    F    44    Janata Dal (United)

2    RAMA KISHORE SINGH    M    46    Lok Jan Shakti Party

3    REETA SINGH    F    40    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    HARIDWAR PRASAD SINGH    M    64    Indian National Congress

5    AJIT PRASAD MEHTA    M    43    Jawan Kisan Morcha

6    ARUN SINGH    M    48    Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

7    BHARAT BHUSAN PANDEY    M    35    Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh

8    RAMADHAR SINGH    M    48    Shivsena

9    SAMBHU PRASAD SHARMA    M    57    All India Forward Bloc

10    SANTOSH KUMAR    M    32    Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

11    SATYA NARAYAN YADAV    M    67    Rashtra Sewa Dal

12    SAIYAD GANIUDDIN HAIDER    M    42    Ambedkar National Congress

13    ASHOK KUMAR SINGH    M    38    Independent

14    BHARAT SINGH SAHYOGI    M    45    Independent

15    MAHESH RAM    M    45    Independent

16    SOBH NATH SINGH    M    39    Independent

S04    33    BR    BUXAR    16-Apr-09    1    KAMLA KANT TIWARY    M    67    Indian National Congress

2    JAGADA NAND SINGH    M    65    Rashtriya Janata Dal

3    LAL MUNI CHOUBEY    M    71    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    SHYAM LAL SINGH KUSHWAHA    M    54    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    MOKARRAM HUSSAIN    M    57    Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

6    MOHAN SAH    M    33    Bharatiya Jantantrik Janta Dal

7    RAJENDRA SINGH MAURYA    M    32    Loktantrik Samata Dal

8    DR. VIJENDRA NATH UPADHYAY    M    37    Shivsena

9    SHYAM BIHARI BIND    M    46    Janvadi Party(Socialist)

10    SATYENDRA OJHA    M    27    Apna Dal

11    SUDAMA PRASAD    M    41    Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

12    SURESH WADEKAR    M    38    Republican Party of India

13    KAMLESH CHOUDHARY    M    35    Independent

14    JAI SINGH YADAV    M    34    Independent

15    DADAN SINGH    M    45    Independent

16    PRATIBHA DEVI    F    40    Independent

17    PHULAN PANDIT    M    44    Independent

18    RAJENDRA PASWAN    M    33    Independent

19    LALLAN RUPNARAIN PATHAK    M    65    Independent

20    SHIV CHARAN YADAV    M    55    Independent

21    SUNIL KUMAR DUBEY    M    32    Independent

22    SURENDRA KUMAR BHARTI    M    38    Independent

S04    34    BR    SASARAM    16-Apr-09    1    GANDHI AZAD    M    62    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    MEIRA KUMAR    F    63    Indian National Congress

3    MUNI LAL    M    61    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    LALAN PASWAN    M    45    Rashtriya Janata Dal

5    DUKHI RAM    M    39    Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

6    BABBAN CHAUDHARY    M    39    Loktantrik Samata Dal

7    BALIRAM RAM    M    43    Pragatisheel Manav Samaj Party

8    BHOLA PRASAD    M    38    Indian Justice Party

9    RADHA DEBI    F    28    Apna Dal

10    RAM NAGINA RAM    M    41    Rashtriya Krantikari Janata Party

11    RAM YADI RAM    M    72    Republican Party of India

12    PRAMOD KUMAR    M    26    Independent

13    BHARAT RAM    M    33    Independent

14    MUNIYA DEBI    F    41    Independent

15    RAM PRAVESH RAM    M    47    Independent

16    SURENDRA RAM    M    39    Independent

S04    35    BR    KARAKAT    16-Apr-09    1    AWADHESH KUMAR SINGH    M    53    Indian National Congress

2    UPENDRA KUMAR SHARMA    M    47    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    KANTI SINGH    F    54    Rashtriya Janata Dal

4    MAHABALI SINGH    M    54    Janata Dal (United)

5    AJAY KUMAR    M    32    Republican Party of India (A)

6    JYOTI RASHMI    F    30    Rashtra Sewa Dal

7    MUDREEKA YADAV    M    59    Apna Dal

8    RAJ KISHOR MISRA    M    30    Alpjan Samaj Party

9    RAJA RAM SINGH    M    53    Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

10    MD.SHAMIULLAH MANSOORI    M    62    Shoshit Samaj Dal

11    ER.ABDUL SATAR    M    62    Independent

12    AMAVAS RAM    M    50    Independent

13    PRO. KAMTA PRASAD YADAV    M    46    Independent

14    GIRISH NARAYAN SINGH    M    48    Independent

15    SATISH PANDEY    M    27    Independent

16    HARI PRASAD SINGH    M    63    Independent

S04    36    BR    JAHANABAD    16-Apr-09    1    DR. ARUN KUMAR    M    49    Indian National Congress

2    JAGDISH SHARMA    M    58    Janata Dal (United)

3    RAMADHAR SHARMA    M    54    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    SURENDRA PRASAD YADAV    M    51    Rashtriya Janata Dal

5    AYASHA KHATUN    F    28    Loktantrik Samata Dal

6    PROF. JAI RAM PRASAD SINGH    M    70    Shoshit Samaj Dal

7    TARA GUPTA    F    62    Rashtriya Pragati Party

8    MAHANAND PRASAD    M    41    Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)

9    RAMASRAY PRASAD SINGH    M    83    Rashtriya Lok Dal

10    MD. SAHABUDDIN JAHAN    M    36    Bharatiya Sarvodaya Kranti Party

11    SHRAVAN KUMAR    M    32    Lal Morcha

12    SADHU SINHA    M    68    All India Forward Bloc

13    SYED AKBAR IMAM    M    49    Akhil Bharatiya Ashok Sena

14    AJAY KUMAR VERMA    M    41    Independent

15    ABHAY KUMAR ANIL    M    41    Independent

16    DR. ARBIND KUMAR    M    52    Independent

17    ARVIND PRASAD SINGH    M    43    Independent

18    UPENDRA PRASAD    M    31    Independent

19    JAGDISH YADAV    M    40    Independent

20    PRIKSHIT SINGH    M    36    Independent

21    PRABHAT KUMAR RANJAN    M    32    Independent

22    RANJIT SHARMA    M    28    Independent

23    RAKESHWAR KISHOR    M    35    Independent

24    SIYA RAM PRASAD    M    40    Independent

25    SUMIRAK SINGH    M    50    Independent

S04    37    BR    AURANGABAD    16-Apr-09    1    ARCHANA CHANDRA    F    32    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    NIKHIL KUMAR    M    67    Indian National Congress

3    SHAKIL AHMAD KHAN    M    61    Rashtriya Janata Dal

4    SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH    M    43    Janata Dal (United)

5    ANIL KUMAR SINGH    M    36    Rashtra Sewa Dal

6    AMERIKA MAHTO    M    48    Shoshit Samaj Dal

7    RAM KUMAR MEHTA    M    37    Loktantrik Samata Dal

8    VIJAY PASWAN    M    48    Bharatiya Sarvodaya Kranti Party

9    ASLAM ANSARI    M    38    Independent

10    INDRA DEO RAM    M    58    Independent

11    UDAY PASWAN    M    41    Independent

12    PUNA DAS    M    34    Independent

13    RANJEET KUMAR    M    48    Independent

14    RAJENDRA YADAV    M    42    Independent

15    RAMSWARUP PRASAD YADAV    M    72    Independent

16    SANTOSH KUMAR    M    40    Independent

S04    38    BR    GAYA    16-Apr-09    1    KALAWATI DEVI    F    27    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    RAMJI MANJHI    M    49    Rashtriya Janata Dal

3    SANJIV PRASAD TONI    M    52    Indian National Congress

4    HARI MANJHI    M    47    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    DILIP PASWAN    M    41    Navbharat Nirman Party

6    NIRANJAN KUMAR    M    35    Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

7    RAJESH KUMAR    M    27    Loktantrik Samata Dal

8    RAMDEV ARYA PAAN    M    67    Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh

9    AMAR NATH PRASAD    M    35    Independent

10    KRISHNA CHOUDHARY    M    26    Independent

11    KAIL DAS    M    66    Independent

12    DIPAK PASWAN    M    27    Independent

13    RAM KISHORE PASWAN    M    36    Independent

14    RAMU PASWAN    M    29    Independent

15    SHIV SHANKAR KUMAR    M    33    Independent

16    SHYAM LAL MANJHI    M    50    Independent

S04    39    BR    NAWADA    16-Apr-09    1    GANESH SHANKAR VIDYARTHI    M    85    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

2    BHOLA SINGH    M    70    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    MASIH UDDIN    M    36    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    VEENA DEVI    F    36    Lok Jan Shakti Party

5    SUNILA DEVI    F    38    Indian National Congress

6    UMAKANT RAHI    M    37    Shoshit Samaj Dal

7    KAILASH PAL    M    48    Bharatiya Sarvodaya Kranti Party

8    VIDHYAPATI SINGH    M    46    Loktantrik Samata Dal

9    SURENDRA KUMAR CHAUDHARY    M    45    Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

10    AKHILESH SINGH    M    38    Independent

11    ANIL MEHTA    M    36    Independent

12    KAUSHAL YADAV    M    39    Independent

13    CHANCHALA DEVI    F    33    Independent

14    DURGA PRASAD DHAR    M    29    Independent

15    NAVIN KUMAR VERMA    M    38    Independent

16    RAJ KISHOR RAJ    M    43    Independent

17    RAJ BALLABH PRASAD    M    46    Independent

18    RAJENDRA VISHAL    M    44    Independent

19    RAJENDRA SINGH    M    60    Independent

20    SHAMBHU PRASAD    M    41    Independent

21    SUNIL KUMAR    M    28    Independent

S04    40    BR    JAMUI    16-Apr-09    1    ASHOK CHOUDHARY    M    42    Indian National Congress

2    GAJADHAR RAJAK    M    63    Communist Party of India

3    BHAGWAN DAS    M    61    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    BHUDEO CHOUDHARY    M    46    Janata Dal (United)

5    SHYAM RAJAK    M    56    Rashtriya Janata Dal

6    ARJUN MANJHI    M    45    Jago Party

7    UPENDRA RAVIDAS    M    30    Samata Party

8    OM PRAKASH PASWAN    M    62    Loktantrik Samata Dal

9    GULAB CHANDRA PASWAN    M    58    Rashtriya Krantikari Janata Party

10    NUNDEO MANJHI    M    54    Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)

11    PRASADI PASWAN    M    37    Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

12    SUBHASH PASWAN    M    36    Samajtantric Party of India

13    KAPILDEO DAS    M    55    Independent

14    JAY SEKHAR MANJHI    M    48    Independent

15    PAPPU RAJAK    M    40    Independent

16    YOGENDRA PASWAN    M    37    Independent

17    VIJAY PASWAN    M    29    Independent

18    BILAKSHAN RAVIDAS    M    51    Independent

19    SARYUG PASWAN    M    65    Independent

S09    6    JK    JAMMU    16-Apr-09    1    S.TARLOK SINGH    M    59    Jammu & Kashmir Peoples Democratic Party

2    HUSSAIN ALI    M    48    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    LILA KARAN SHARMA    M    68    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    MADAN LAL SHARMA    M    56    Indian National Congress

5    UDAY CHAND    M    55    Duggar Pradesh Party

6    SURJIT SINGH ‘G’ SITARA    M    58    Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

7    SANT RAM    M    73    Bharatiya Bahujan Party

8    SANJEEV KUMAR MANMOTRA    M    42    Lok Jan Shakti Party

9    QARI ZAHIR ABBAS BHATTI    M    39    All India Forward Bloc

10    ABDUL MAJEED MALIK    M    37    Backward Classes Democratic Party, J&K

11    ASHOK KUMAR    M    45    Independent

12    BALWAN SINGH    M    35    Independent

13    PARAS RAM POONCHI    M    56    Independent

14    RAMESH CHANDER SHARMA    M    36    Independent

15    SATISH POONCHI    M    60    Independent

16    SANJAY KUMAR    M    39    Independent

17    SHAKEELA BANO    F    32    Independent

18    LABHA RAM GANDHI    M    46    Independent

19    CH. MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN CHOUHAN    M    38    Independent

20    NARESH DOGRA    M    40    Independent

21    HILAL AHMED BAIG    M    29    Independent

S11    1    KL    KASARAGOD    16-Apr-09    1    P KARUNAKARAN    M    64    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

2    K.H.MADHAVI    F    35    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    SHAHIDA KAMAL    F    40    Indian National Congress

4    K. SURENDRAN    M    37    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    ABBAS MUTHALAPPARA    M    47    Independent

6    MOHAN NAYAK    M    73    Independent

7    P.K. RAMAN    M    48    Independent

S11    2    KL    KANNUR    16-Apr-09    1    P.P KARUNAKARAN MASTER    M    61    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    K.K BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR    M    52    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    K.K RAGESH    M    38    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

4    K. SUDHAKARAN    M    60    Indian National Congress

5    P.I. CHANDRASEKHARAN    M    53    The Humanist Party of India

6    JOHNSON ALIAS SUNNY AMBATT    M    48    Independent

7    K. RAGESH S/O. JANARDHANAN    M    33    Independent

8    PATTATHIL RAGHAVAN    M    82    Independent

9    K. SUDHAKARAN KAVINTE ARIKATH    M    39    Independent

S11    3    KL    VADAKARA    16-Apr-09    1    ADV.K. NOORUDHEEN MUSALIAR    M    56    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    MULLAPPALLY RAMACHANDRAN    M    64    Indian National Congress

3    K.P SREESAN    M    49    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    ADV. P. SATHEEDEVI    F    52    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

5    T.P CHANDRASEKHARAN    M    47    Independent

6    NAROTH RAMACHANDRAN    M    58    Independent

7    P.SATHIDEVI PALLIKKAL    F    36    Independent

8    SATHEEDEVI    F    42    Independent

S11    4    KL    WAYANAD    16-Apr-09    1    K. MURALEEDHARAN    M    51    Nationalist Congress Party

2    RAJEEV JOSEPH    M    40    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    C. VASUDEVAN MASTER    M    65    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    M.I. SHANAVAS    M    57    Indian National Congress

5    ADVOCATE. M. RAHMATHULLA    M    48    Communist Party of India

6    KALLANGODAN ABDUL LATHEEF    M    46    Independent

7    CLETUS    M    52    Independent

8    DR. NALLA THAMPY THERA    M    75    Independent

9    ADVOCATE. SHANAVAS MALAPPURAM    M    36    Independent

10    SHANAVAS MANAKULANGARA PARAMBIL    M    29    Independent

11    SUNNY PONNAMATTOM    M    58    Independent

12    M.P. RAHMATH    M    30    Independent

13    RAHMATHULLA POOLADAN    M    36    Independent

S11    5    KL    KOZHIKODE    16-Apr-09    1    A.K. ABDUL NASAR    M    35    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    ADV. P.A. MOHAMED RIYAS    M    33    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

3    V. MURALEEDHARAN    M    49    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    M.K. RAGHAVAN    M    57    Indian National Congress

5    ADV. P. KUMARANKUTTY    M    64    Independent

6    K. MUHAMMED RIYAS    M    27    Independent

7    P. MUHAMMED RIYAS    M    28    Independent

8    P.A. MOHAMMED RIYAS    M    37    Independent

9    MUDOOR MUHAMMED HAJI    M    44    Independent

10    K. RAGHAVAN    M    44    Independent

11    P. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR    M    63    Independent

12    M. RAGHAVAN    M    65    Independent

13    VINOD K.    M    33    Independent

14    ADV. SABI JOSEPH    M    60    Independent

15    DR. D.SURENDRANATH    M    60    Independent

16    RIYAS    M    31    Independent

S11    6    KL    MALAPPURAM    16-Apr-09    1    ADV.E.A. ABOOBACKER    M    52    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    ADV. N. ARAVINDAN    M    43    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    E. AHAMED    M    70    Muslim League Kerala State Committee

4    T.K. HAMSA    M    71    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

S11    7    KL    PONNANI    16-Apr-09    1    K. JANACHANDRAN MASTER    M    57    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    P.K. MUHAMMED    M    56    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    E.T. MUHAMMED BASHEER    M    62    Muslim League Kerala State Committee

4    ABDUREHMAN    M    32    Independent

5    DR. AZAD    M    45    Independent

6    PULLANI GOVINDAN    M    64    Independent

7    DR. HUSSAIN RANTATHANI    M    51    Independent

8    HUSSAIN EDAYATH    M    29    Independent

9    HUSSAIN KADAIKKAL    M    37    Independent

10    HUSSAIN PERICHAYIL    M    42    Independent

11    HUSSAIN    M    29    Independent

12    DR. HUSSAIN    M    40    Independent

13    K. SADANANDAN    M    62    Independent

S11    8    KL    PALAKKAD    16-Apr-09    1    ABDUL RAZAK MOULAVI    M    47    Nationalist Congress Party

2    CHANDRAN. V    M    63    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    C.K. PADMANABHAN    M    60    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    M.B. RAJESH    M    34    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

5    SATHEESAN PACHENI    M    41    Indian National Congress

6    A. AROKIASAMY    M    61    Independent

7    M.R. MURALI    M    43    Independent

8    N.V. RAJESH    M    35    Independent

9    VIJAYAN AMBALAKKAD    M    42    Independent

10    SATHEESAN. E.V    M    37    Independent

S11    9    KL    ALATHUR    16-Apr-09    1    P.K BIJU    M    34    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

2    M. BINDU TEACHER    F    35    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    DR. G SUDEVAN    M    61    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    N.K SUDHEER    M    44    Indian National Congress

5    K. GOPALAKRISHNAN    M    39    Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

6    BIJU K.K    M    38    Independent

7    P.C BIJU    M    36    Independent

8    C.K RAMAKRISHNAN    M    43    Independent

9    K.K SUDHIR    M    44    Independent

S11    10    KL    THRISSUR    16-Apr-09    1    P C CHACKO    M    62    Indian National Congress

2    C N JAYADEVAN    M    58    Communist Party of India

3    ADV. JOSHY THARAKAN    M    42    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    REMA REGUNANDAN    F    48    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    AJAYAN KUTTIKAT    M    36    Janata Dal (United)

6    K ARUN KUMAR    M    39    Independent

7    KUNJAN PULAYAN    M    52    Independent

8    E A JOSEPH    M    49    Independent

9    N K RAVI    M    46    Independent

10    P C SAJU    M    35    Independent

11    ADV. N HARIHARAN NAIR    M    63    Independent

S11    11    KL    CHALAKUDY    16-Apr-09    1    ADV. U.P JOSEPH    M    45    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

2    K.P. DHANAPALAN    M    59    Indian National Congress

3    MUTTAM ABDULLA    M    49    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    ADV.K.V. SABU    M    47    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    HAMSA KALAPARAMBATH    M    47    Lok Jan Shakti Party

6    JOHNNY K CHEEKU    M    47    Independent

7    JOSE MAVELI    M    58    Independent

8    U.P JOSE    M    45    Independent

9    DR. P.S. BABU    M    42    Independent

10    T.S NARAYANAN MASTER    M    67    Independent

11    C.A. HASEENA    F    36    Independent

S11    12    KL    ERNAKULAM    16-Apr-09    1    PROF. K V THOMAS    M    61    Indian National Congress

2    A.N. RADHAKRISHNAN    M    49    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    SHERIF MOHAMMED    M    56    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    SINDHU JOY    F    32    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

5    SAJU THOMAS    M    43    Lok Jan Shakti Party

6    MARY FRANCIS MOOLAMPILLY    F    59    Independent

7    VISWAMBARAN    M    59    Independent

8    SAJI THURUTHIKUNNEL    M    37    Independent

9    SINDHU K.S    F    36    Independent

10    SINDHU JAYAN    F    38    Independent

S11    13    KL    IDUKKI    16-Apr-09    1    ADV. P.T THOMAS    M    59    Indian National Congress

2    ADV. K. FRANCIS GEORGE    M    54    Kerala Congress

3    ADV. BIJU M JOHN    M    40    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    SREENAGARI RAJAN    M    49    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    VASUDEVAN    M    39    Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katch

6    ADV. CHITTOOR RAJAMANNAR    M    50    Independent

7    JOSE KUTTIYANY    M    69    Independent

8    KANCHIYAR PEETHAMBARAN    M    45    Independent

9    BABY    M    51    Independent

10    M A SOOSAI    M    45    Independent

S11    14    KL    KOTTAYAM    16-Apr-09    1    JOSE K.MANI    M    44    Kerala Congress (M)

2    ADV. NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI    M    48    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    ADV. SURESH KURUP    M    52    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

4    SPENCER MARKS    M    39    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    ADV. JAIMON THANKACHAN    M    39    Samajwadi Jan Parishad

6    ANTO P JOHN    M    41    Independent

7    JUNO JOHN BABY    M    34    Independent

8    JOSE    M    45    Independent

9    JOSE MATHEW    M    32    Independent

10    JOSE K. MANI    M    32    Independent

11    BABU    M    41    Independent

12    K.T MATHEW    M    50    Independent

13    MINI K PHILIP    F    41    Independent

14    M.S RAVEENDRAN    M    49    Independent

15    K. RAJAPPAN    M    57    Independent

16    SASIKUTTAN VAKATHANAM    M    53    Independent

17    SURESH N.B KURUP    M    26    Independent

18    SURESHKUMAR K    M    33    Independent

19    SURESHKUMAR T.R    M    36    Independent

20    SURESH KURUMBAN    M    36    Independent

S11    15    KL    ALAPPUZHA    16-Apr-09    1    DR. K.S MANOJ    M    43    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

2    K.C VENUGOPAL    M    46    Indian National Congress

3    K.S PRASAD    M    54    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    P.J KURIAN    M    63    Janata Dal (United)

5    S. SEETHILAL    M    45    Independent

6    SONY J. KALYANKUMAR    M    51    Independent

S11    16    KL    MAVELIKKARA    16-Apr-09    1    R.S ANIL    M    34    Communist Party of India

2    KODIKKUNNIL SURESH    M    46    Indian National Congress

3    DR. N.D MOHAN    M    56    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    P.M VELAYUDHAN    M    52    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    ANIL KUMAR    M    26    Independent

6    K.S SASIKALA    F    40    Independent

7    SOORANAD SUKUMARAN    M    60    Independent

S11    17    KL    PATHANAMTHITTA    16-Apr-09    1    ANANTHA GOPAN    M    61    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

2    ANTO ANTONY    M    52    Indian National Congress

3    KARUNAKARAN NAIR    M    78    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    MANI C.KAPPEN    M    51    Nationalist Congress Party

5    RADHAKRISHNA MENON    M    44    Bharatiya Janata Party

6    KUNJU PILLAI    M    60    Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

7    ANTO    M    33    Independent

8    JYOTHISH M.R    M    37    Independent

9    THAMBI    M    40    Independent

10    NIRANAM RAJAN    M    47    Independent

11    PUSHPANGADAN    M    40    Independent

12    MATHEW PAREY    M    26    Independent

S11    18    KL    KOLLAM    16-Apr-09    1    ADVT. K M JAYANANDAN    M    52    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    N.PEETHAMBARAKURUP    M    66    Indian National Congress

3    VAYAKKAL MADHU    M    48    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    P.RAJENDRAN    M    58    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

5    ADV.ANU SASI    M    28    Independent

6    KRISHNAMMAL    F    59    Independent

7    K A JOHN    M    55    Independent

8    N.PEETHAMBARAKURUP    M    61    Independent

9    S.PRADEEP KUMAR    M    30    Independent

10    S.RADHAKRISHNAN    M    47    Independent

11    R.ZAKIEER HUSSAIN    M    37    Independent

S11    19    KL    ATTINGAL    16-Apr-09    1    PROF.G BALACHANDRAN    M    63    Indian National Congress

2    THOTTAKKADU SASI    M    54    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    ADV. A SAMPATH    M    46    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

4    J SUDHAKARAN    M    60    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    SREENATH    M    53    Shivsena

6    JAYAKUMAR    M    56    Independent

7    BALACHANDRAN    M    51    Independent

8    BALACHNDRAN C P    M    59    Independent

9    MURALI KUMAR    M    43    Independent

10    J VIJAYAKUMAR    M    49    Independent

11    VIVEKANANDAN    M    59    Independent

12    SHAMSUDEEN    M    56    Independent

13    SAJIMON    M    25    Independent

14    SAIFUDEEN M    M    55    Independent

S11    20    KL    THIRUVANANTHAPURAM    16-Apr-09    1    P K KRISHNA DAS    M    45    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    M.P.GANGADHARAN    M    74    Nationalist Congress Party

3    DR.A NEELALOHITHADASAN NADAR    M    61    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    ADV. P RAMACHANDRAN NAIR    M    57    Communist Party of India

5    SHASHI THAROOR    M    53    Indian National Congress

6    AJITHKUMAR.K    M    41    All India Trinamool Congress

7    JAIN WILSON    M    41    Bahujan Shakty

8    G ASHOKAN    M    47    Independent

9    T.GEORGE    M    40    Independent

10    DILEEP    M    28    Independent

11    U.NAHURMIRAN PEERU MOHAMMED    M    49    Independent

12    PRATHAPAN    M    54    Independent

13    MOHANAN JOSHWA    M    49    Independent

14    SASI – JANAKI SADAN    M    39    Independent

15    SASI – KALAPURAKKAL    M    51    Independent

16    SHAJAR KHAN    M    38    Independent

S13    5    MH    BULDHANA    16-Apr-09    1    JADHAV PRATAPRAO GANPATRAO    M    49    Shivsena

2    DANDGE VASANTRAO SUGDEO    M    55    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    SHINGNE DR.RAJENDRA BHASKARRAO    M    48    Nationalist Congress Party

4    AMARDEEP BALASAHEB DESHMUKH    M    27    Krantisena Maharashtra

5    QURRASHI SK.SIKANDAR SK. SHAUKAT    M    33    Democratic Secular Party

6    GAJANAN RAJARAM SIRSAT    M    27    Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

7    DHOKNE RAVINDRA TULSHRAMJI    M    44    Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

8    FERAN CHADRAHAS JAGDEO    M    54    Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha

9    GANESH ARJUN ZORE    M    25    Independent

10    TAYDE VITTHAL PANDHARI    M    56    Independent

11    DEVIDAS PIRAJI SARKATE    M    35    Independent

12    SY. BILAL SY. USMAN    M    38    Independent

13    BHARAT PUNJAJI SHINGANE    M    40    Independent

14    RAJESH NIKANTHRAO TATHE    M    52    Independent

15    RATHOD CHHAGAN BABULAL    M    29    Independent

S13    6    MH    AKOLA    16-Apr-09    1    DHOTRE SANJAY SHAMRAO    M    50    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    BABASAHEB DHABEKAR    M    78    Indian National Congress

3    ATIK AHAMAD GU. JILANI    M    34    Democratic Secular Party

4    AMBEDKAR PRAKASH YASHWANT    M    56    Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

5    GANESH TULSHIRAM TATHE    M    49    Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena

6    DIPAK SHRIRAM TIRAKE    M    33    Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

7    AJABRAO UTTAMRAO BHONGADE    M    36    Independent

8    THAKURDAS GOVIND CHOUDHARI    M    39    Independent

9    MUJAHID KHAN CHAND KHAN    M    42    Independent

10    RAUT DEVIDAS ANANDRAO    M    45    Independent

11    WASUDEORAO KHADE GURUJI    M    68    Independent

S13    7    MH    AMRAVATI    16-Apr-09    1    ADSUL ANANDRAO VITHOBA    M    61    Shivsena

2    GANGADHAR GADE    M    62    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    UGLE SUNIL NAMDEV    M    32    Peoples Republican Party

4    UBALE SHRIKRISHNA CHAMPATRAO    M    62    Ambedkarist Republican Party

5    KESHAV DASHARATH WANKHADE    M    38    Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena

6    GAWAI RAJENDRA RAMKRUSHNA    M    46    Republican Party of India

7    PRINCIPAL GOPICHAND SURYABHAN MESHRAM    M    52    Republican Paksha (Khoripa)

8    BARSE MANOHAR DAULATRAO    M    53    Indian Union Muslim League

9    SAU MAMATA VINAYAK KANDALKAR    F    31    Assam United Democratic Front

10    DR. HEMANTKUMAR RAMBHAU MAHURE    M    34    Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

11    AMOL DEVIDASRAO JADHAV    M    25    Independent

12    UMAK SHRIKRUSHNA SHYAMRAO    M    57    Independent

13    BANDU SAMPATRAO SANE (BANDYA L.S.)    M    43    Independent

14    BHAURAO SHRIRAM CHHAPANE    M    38    Independent

15    MITHUN HIRAMAN GAIKWAD    M    51    Independent

16    PROF. MUKUND VITTHALRAO KHAIRE    M    51    Independent

17    DR. RAJIV GULABRAO JAMTHE    M    53    Independent

18    RAJU MAHADEVRAO SONONE    M    38    Independent

19    VISHWANATH GOTUJI JAMNEKAR    M    60    Independent

20    SUDHAKAR VYANKAT RAMTEKE (MAJI SAINIK)    M    25    Independent

21    ADV. SUDHIR HIRAMAN TAYADE    M    42    Independent

22    SUNIL PRABHU RAMTEKE    M    37    Independent

S13    8    MH    WARDHA    16-Apr-09    1    KANGALE BIPIN BABASAHEB    M    32    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    DATTA MEGHE    M    72    Indian National Congress

3    SURESH GANPATRAO WAGHMARE    M    48    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    DIWATE RAMESH MADHAORAO    M    46    Krantisena Maharashtra

5    NARAYANRAO RAMJI CHIDAM    M    68    Gondvana Gantantra Party

6    DR. NITIN KESHORAO CHAVAN    M    46    Peoples Republican Party

7    PYARE SAHAB SHEIKH KARIM    M    41    Democratic Secular Party

8    BHOSE KAILAS VISHWASRAO    M    36    Gondwana Mukti Sena

9    ADV. SURESH SHINDE    M    42    Indian Justice Party

10    SANGITA SUNIL ALIAS SONU KAMBLE    F    33    Ambedkarist Republican Party

11    ISHWARKUMAR SHANKARRAO GHARPURE    M    50    Independent

12    GUNWANT TUKARAMJI DAWANDE    M    70    Independent

13    JAGANNATH NILKANTHRAO RAUT    M    54    Independent

14    TAGADE VISHWESHWAR AWADHUTRAO    M    47    Independent

15    RAMTEKE PRAKASH BAKARAM    M    60    Independent

16    SARANG PRAKASHRAO YAWALKAR    M    31    Independent

S13    9    MH    RAMTEK    16-Apr-09    1    TUMANE KRUPAL BALAJI    M    43    Shivsena

2    PRAKASHBHAU KISHAN TEMBHURNE    M    34    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    WASNIK MUKUL BALKRISHNA    M    49    Indian National Congress

4    KUMBHARE SULEKHA NARAYAN    F    49    Bahujan Republican Ekta Manch

5    DESHPANDE SANJAY SAOJI    M    44    Hindustan Janta Party

6    NAGARKAR PRASHANT HANSRAJ    M    34    Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

7    NANDKISHOR SADHUJI DONGRE    M    34    Gondvana Gantantra Party

8    BAGDE SUJEET WASUDEORAO    M    43    Janata Dal (Secular)

9    PROF. BORKAR PRADIP DARYAV    M    48    Republican Paksha (Khoripa)

10    MAYATAI CHAWRE (UTWAL)    F    37    Samajwadi Party

11    VISKAS RAJARAM DAMLE    M    41    Republican Party of India (Khobragade)

12    SEEMA JEEVAN RAMTEKE    F    36    Democratic Secular Party

13    SANDIP SHESHRAO GAJBHIYE    M    36    Gondwana Mukti Sena

14    ASHISH ARUN NAGARARE    M    28    Independent

15    KHUSHAL UDARAMJI TUMANE    M    53    Independent

16    DHONE ANIL    M    43    Independent

17    ADV. DUPARE ULHAS SHALIKRAM    M    42    Independent

18    BARWE MADHUKAR DOMAJI    M    43    Independent

19    ADV. YUVRAJ ANANDRAOJI BAGDE    M    34    Independent

20    RURESH MANGALDAS BORKAR    M    33    Independent

S13    10    MH    NAGPUR    16-Apr-09    1    PUROHIT BANWARILAL BHAGWANDAS    M    69    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    ENGINEER MANIKRAO VAIDYA    M    56    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    MUTTEMWAR VILASRAO BABURAOJI    M    60    Indian National Congress

4    ARUN SHAMRAO JOSHI    M    58    Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha

5    KUMBHARE SULEKHA NARAYAN    F    49    Bahujan Republican Ekta Manch

6    ADV. GAJANAN SADASHIV KAWALE    M    51    Republican Paksha (Khoripa)

7    DILIP MANGAL MADAVI    M    44    Gondvana Gantantra Party

8    MEHMOOD KHAN RAHEEM KHAN    M    27    Democratic Secular Party

9    DR. YASHWANT MANOHAR    M    66    Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

10    RAUT RAMESHCHANDRA    M    56    Prabuddha Republican Party

11    RAJESH SUKHDEV GAIKWAD    M    32    Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena

12    ADV. VASANTA UMRE    M    50    Democratic Party of India

13    SOMKUWAR VIJAY SITARAM    M    41    Ambedkarist Republican Party

14    AZIZUR REHMAN SHEIKH    M    46    Independent

15    ASHISH ARUN NAGRARE    M    28    Independent

16    ADV. UPASHA BANSI TAYWADE    M    67    Independent

17    JAGDISH RAGHUNATH AMBADE    M    44    Independent

18    PRATIBHA UDAY KHAPARDE    F    35    Independent

19    PREMDAS RAMCHANDRA RAMTEKE    M    48    Independent

20    BARPATRE CHANDRABHAN SOMAJI    M    48    Independent

21    BLASAHEB ALIAS PRAMOD RAMAJI SHAMBHARKAR    M    40    Independent

22    MOHAMAD HABIB REEZAVI    M    50    Independent

23    RAJESHKUMAR MOHANLAL PUGALIA    M    37    Independent

24    RAHUL MADHUKAR DESHMUKH    M    34    Independent

25    VIJAY DEVRAO DHAKATE    M    26    Independent

26    SUNIL GAYAPRASAD MISHRA    M    41    Independent

27    PROF. DNYANESH WAKUDKAR    M    52    Independent

S13    11    MH    BHANDARA – GONDIYA    16-Apr-09    1    GANVIR SHIVKUMAR NAGARCHI    M    56    Communist Party of India

2    JAISWAL VIRENDRAKUMAR KASTURCHAND    M    53    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    PATLE SHISHUPAL NATTHUJI    M    42    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    PATEL PRAFUL MANOHARBHAI    M    52    Nationalist Congress Party

5    UNDIRWADE HEMANT JAGIVAN    M    45    Prabuddha Republican Party

6    JAMAIWAR SUNIL PARASRAM    M    38    Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

7    PATHAN MUSHTAK LATIF    M    32    Democratic Secular Party

8    PRATIBHA VASANT PIMPALKAR    F    38    Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

9    WASNIK SUNIL MANIRAM    M    38    Republican Paksha (Khoripa)

10    UKEY CHINDHUJI LAKHAJI    M    50    Independent

11    GAJBHIYE BRAMHASWARUP BABURAO    M    33    Independent

12    GAJBHIYE RAJENDRA MAHADEO    M    35    Independent

13    ADV. DHANANJAY SHAMLALJI RAJABHOJ    M    50    Independent

14    NANABHAU FALGUNRAO PATOLE    M    47    Independent

15    PATLE AKARSING SITARAM    M    36    Independent

16    PROF. DR. BHASKARRAO MAHADEORAO JIBHAKATE    M    63    Independent

17    MIRZA WAHIDBEG AHAMADBEG    M    33    Independent

18    YELE GANESHRAM SUKHRAM    M    54    Independent

19    RAHANGADALE MULCHAND OLGAN    M    56    Independent

20    DR. RAMSAJIVAN KAWDU LILHARE    M    60    Independent

21    SADANAND SHRAWANJI GANVIR    M    40    Independent

S13    12    MH    GADCHIROLI-CHIMUR    16-Apr-09    1    ASHOK MAHADEORAO NETE    M    45    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    ATRAM RAJE SATYAWANRAO    M    58    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    KOWASE MAROTRAO SAINUJI    M    59    Indian National Congress

4    NAMDEO ANANDRAO KANNAKE    M    50    Communist Party of India

5    PROFFESOR KHANDALE KAWDU TULSHIRAM    M    69    Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena

6    ADV. DADMAL PRABHAKAR MAHAGUJI    M    54    Peoples Republican Party

7    PENDAM DIWAKAR GULAB    M    38    Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

8    PENDAM PURUSHOTTAM ZITUJI    M    35    Democratic Secular Party

9    VIJAY SURAJSING MADAVI    M    39    Gondvana Gantantra Party

10    JAMBHULE NARAYAN DINABAJI    M    54    Independent

11    DINESH TUKARAM MADAVI    M    28    Independent

S13    13    MH    CHANDRAPUR    16-Apr-09    1    AHIR HANSARAJ GANGARAM    M    54    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    PUGALIA NARESH    M    60    Indian National Congress

3    ADV. HAZARE DATTABHAU KRUSHNARAO    M    52    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    KHARTAD LOMESH MAROTI    M    55    Rashtrawadi Sena

5    KHOBRAGADE DESHAK GIRISHBABU    M    38    Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

6    CHATAP WAMAN SADASHIVRAO    M    58    Swatantra Bharat Paksha

7    JAWED ABDUL KURESHI ALIAS PROF. JAWED PASHA    M    47    Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

8    JITENDRA ADAKU RAUT    M    32    Akhil Bhartiya Manavata Paksha

9    DANGE NATTHU BHAURAO    M    41    Ambedkarist Republican Party

10    PATHAN A. RAZZAK KHAN HAYAT KHAN    M    44    Samajwadi Party

11    MASRAM NIRANJAN SHIVRAM    M    42    Gondvana Gantantra Party

12    KALE DAMODHAR LAXMAN    M    85    Independent

13    QURESHI IKHALAQ MOHD. YUSUF    M    51    Independent

14    GODE NARAYAN SHAHUJI    M    42    Independent

15    DEKATE BHASKAR PARASHRAM    M    55    Independent

16    MADHUKAR VITTHALRAO NISTANE    M    43    Independent

17    MESHRAM CHARANDAS JANGLUJI    M    65    Independent

18    RAMESH RAGHOBAJI TAJNE    M    45    Independent

19    VINOD DINANATH MESHRAM    M    34    Independent

20    VIRENDRA TARACHANDJI PUGLIA    M    53    Independent

21    SHATRUGHN VYANKATRAO SONPIMPLE    M    37    Independent

22    SANJAY NILKANTH GAWANDE    M    45    Independent

23    HIWARKAR SUDHIR MOTIRAMJI    M    43    Independent

S13    14    MH    YAVATMAL-WASHIM    16-Apr-09    1    YEDATKAR DILIP LAXMANRAO    M    50    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    BHAVANA GAWALI (PATIL)    F    36    Shivsena

3    HARISING RATHOD    M    54    Indian National Congress

4    UTTAM BHAGAJI KAMBLE    M    41    Prabuddha Republican Party

5    KURESHI SK. MEHBUB SK.FATTU    M    44    Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

6    KWAJA NASIRODDINE KHAN    M    29    Democratic Secular Party

7    GAJANAN KASHIRAM PATIL (HEMBADE)    M    26    Krantisena Maharashtra

8    DHAGE VITTHAL MAHADEV    M    45    Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

9    MANIYAR YUNUS MAHMOOD ZAHMI    M    50    Assam United Democratic Front

10    MOHMMAD KHAN AZIZ KHAN    M    43    Samajwadi Party

11    ATHAWALE SADANAND PRALHADRAO    M    39    Independent

12    GAJANAN BURMAL DODWADE    M    36    Independent

13    NETAJI SITARAMJI KINAKE    M    58    Independent

14    NANDKISHOR NARAYANRAO THAKARE    M    34    Independent

15    PAWAR RAMESH GORSING    M    53    Independent

16    PURUSHOTTAM DOMAJI BHAJGAWRE    M    48    Independent

17    MADHUKAR SHIVDASPPA GORATE    M    67    Independent

18    MANOJ JANARDAN PATIL    M    38    Independent

19    MUKHADE SAU. LALITARAI SUBHASHRAO    F    32    Independent

20    MESHRAM BANDU GANPAT    M    40    Independent

21    MOHD. INAMURRAHIM MOHD. MUSA    M    51    Independent

22    RAVINDRA ALIAS RAVIPAL MADHUKARRAO GANDHE    M    32    Independent

23    RAJKUMAR NARAYAN BHUJADALE    M    35    Independent

24    RATHOD DEVISING RAMA    M    56    Independent

25    SD. VHIDODDIN SD. KRIMODDIN    M    44    Independent

26    VISHNU KASINATH TAWKAR    M    47    Independent

27    SURESH BABAN PEDEKAR    M    33    Independent

28    SURESH BHIVA TARAL    M    29    Independent

S13    15    MH    HINGOLI    16-Apr-09    1    DR. B.D. CHAVHAN    M    45    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    SUBHASH BAPURAO WANDHEDE    M    46    Shivsena

3    SURYAKANTA JAIWANTRAO PATIL    F    63    Nationalist Congress Party

4    UTTAMRAO DAGADUJI BHAGAT    M    65    Prabuddha Republican Party

5    AJAS NOORMINYA    M    32    Democratic Secular Party

6    NAIK MADHAVRAO BAHENARAO    M    65    Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

7    VINAYAK SHRIRAM BHISE    M    27    Krantisena Maharashtra

8    GUNDEKAR SANJAY ADELU    M    35    Independent

9    PATHAN SATTAR KASIMKHAN    M    38    Independent

10    PACHPUTE RAMPRASAD KISHANRAO    M    41    Independent

11    MD. A. MUJIM ANSARI A.    M    33    Independent

S13    16    MH    NANDED    16-Apr-09    1    KHATGAONK PATIL BHASKARRAO BAPURAO    M    65    Indian National Congress

2    MD. MAKBUL SALIM HAJI MD. KHAJA    M    60    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    SAMBHAJI PAWAR    M    60    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    ALTAF AHMAD EAKBAL AHMAD    M    43    Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

5    KHADE SANJAY WAMANRAO    M    29    Prabuddha Republican Party

6    TIWARI RAMA BHAGIRAT    F    40    Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

7    ADV. C.S. BAHETI    M    56    Janata Party

8    MORE RAJESH EKNATHRAO    M    34    Krantisena Maharashtra

9    A. RAEES A. JABBAR    M    36    Ambedkar National Congress

10    SHINDE PREETI MADHUKAR    F    27    Jan Surajya Shakti

11    SHUDHIR YASHWANT SURVE    M    40    Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena

12    COM. ASHOK NAGORAO GHAYALE    M    40    Independent

13    ANAND JADHAV HOTALKAR    M    42    Independent

14    KOREWAR BALAJI NARSING    M    38    Independent

15    JADHAV VISHNU MAROTI    M    35    Independent

16    NAVGHARE ANAND PANDURANG    M    48    Independent

17    NARAYAN SURYAVANSHI DOANGONKAR    M    63    Independent

18    PATHAN ZAFAR ALI KHAN MAHEMUD ALI KHAN    M    63    Independent

19    ‘AIDS MAN’ PRAKASH TATERAO LANDGE    M    40    Independent

20    BHARANDE RAMCHANDRA GANGARAM    M    31    Independent

21    ADV. RAMRAO PANDURANG WAGHMARE    M    52    Independent

22    HANMANTE VIJAY CHANDRAO    M    35    Independent

S13    17    MH    PARBHANI    16-Apr-09    1    ADV. DUDHGAONKAR GANESHRAO NAGORAO    M    64    Shivsena

2    RAJSHRI BABASAHEB JAMAGE    F    46    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    WARPUDKAR SURESH AMBADASRAO    M    60    Nationalist Congress Party

4    AJIM AHMED KHAN AJIJ KHAN    M    32    Democratic Secular Party

5    ASHOKRAO BABARAO AMBHORE    M    46    Ambedkar National Congress

6    KACHOLE MANAVENDRA SAWALARAM    M    65    Swatantra Bharat Paksha

7    KALE VYANKATRAO BHIMRAO    M    31    Krantisena Maharashtra

8    NAMDEV LIMBAJI KACHAVE    M    68    Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena

9    BHAND GANGADHAR SAKHARAM    M    70    Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

10    MULE BABAN DATTARAO    M    41    Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

11    RUMALE TUKARAM DHONDIBA    M    51    Prabuddha Republican Party

12    SAYYAD EKRAMODDIN SAYYAD MUNIRODDIN    M    58    Lok Vikas Party

13    ASAD BIN ABDULLAHA BIN    M    43    Independent

14    JAMEEL AHMED SK. AHMED    M    44    Independent

15    DR. DESHMUKH KISHANRAO JANARDHANRAO (EX-SERVICEMAN)    M    74    Independent

16    RATHOD RAMRAO DHANSING SIR    M    58    Independent

17    SHINDE LAXMAN EKANATH    M    36    Independent

18    SAMAR GORAKHNATH PAWAR    M    41    Independent

19    SALVE SUDHAKAR UMAJI    M    47    Independent

S14    2    MN    OUTER MANIPUR    16-Apr-09    1    THANGSO BAITE    M    56    Indian National Congress

2    D. LOLI ADANEE    M    56    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    L.B. SONA    M    58    Nationalist Congress Party

4    M. JAMKHONGAM @ M. YAMKHONGAM HAOKIP    M    49    Rashtriya Janata Dal

5    THANGKHANGIN    M    53    Lok Jan Shakti Party

6    MANI CHARENAMEI    M    50    Peoples Democratic Alliance

7    VALLEY ROSE HUNGYO    F    53    Independent

8    MANGSHI (ROSE MANGSHI HAOKIP)    F    63    Independent

9    LAMLALMOI GANGTE    M    33    Independent

S15    1    ML    SHILLONG    16-Apr-09    1    DALINGTON DYMPEP    M    78    Communist Party of India

2    JOHN FILMORE KHARSHIING    M    46    United Democratic Party

3    VINCENT H PALA    M    41    Indian National Congress

4    P. B. M. BASAIAWMOIT    M    60    Hill State People’s Democratic Party

5    MARTLE N.MUKHIM    M    59    Meghalaya Democratic Party

6    DENIS SIANGSHAI    M    44    Independent

7    TIEROD PASSAH    M    45    Independent

S15    2    ML    TURA    16-Apr-09    1    AGATHA K. SANGMA    F    28    Nationalist Congress Party

2    DEBORA C. MARAK    F    43    Indian National Congress

3    BOSTON MARAK    M    28    A-Chik National Congress(Democratic)

4    ARLENE N. SANGMA    F    53    Independent

S16    1    MZ    MIZORAM    16-Apr-09    1    LALAWMPUIA CHHANGTE    M    42    Nationalist Congress Party

2    C.L.RUALA    M    72    Indian National Congress

3    DR. H. LALLUNGMUANA    M    65    Independent

4    RUALPAWLA    M    54    Independent

S17    1    NL    NAGALAND    16-Apr-09    1    K. ASUNGBA SANGTAM    M    62    Indian National Congress

2    C.M. CHANG    M    65    Nagaland Peoples Front

3    DR. RILANTHUNG ODYUO    M    39    All India Trinamool Congress

S18    1    OR    BARGARH    16-Apr-09    1    RADHARANI PANDA    F    48    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    SANJAY BHOI    M    35    Indian National Congress

3    SUNIL KUMAR AGRAWAL    M    37    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    DR. HAMID HUSSAIN    M    54    Biju Janata Dal

5    NILADRI BEHARI PANDA    M    29    Kosal Kranti Dal

6    SURENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL    M    37    Independent

S18    2    OR    SUNDARGARH    16-Apr-09    1    JUAL ORAM    M    48    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    JEROM DUNGDUNG    M    39    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    LIVNUS KINDO    M    64    Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

4    SALOMI MINZ    F    48    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

5    HEMANANDA BISWAL    M    67    Indian National Congress

6    RAMA CHANDRA EKKA    M    61    Jharkhand Disom Party

7    SAGAR SING MANKEE    M    60    Kosal Kranti Dal

8    DALESWAR MAJHI    M    58    Independent

9    MANSID EKKA    M    63    Independent

S18    3    OR    SAMBALPUR    16-Apr-09    1    AMARNATH PRADHAN    M    51    Indian National Congress

2    GOBINDA RAM AGARWAL    M    59    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    ROHIT PUJARI    M    35    Biju Janata Dal

4    SURENDRA LATH    M    59    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    ASHOK KUMAR NAIK    M    53    Kosal Kranti Dal

6    BIJAYA KUMAR MAHANANDA    M    35    Republican Party of India

7    MD. ALI HUSSAIN    M    37    Independent

S18    10    OR    BOLANGIR    16-Apr-09    1    KALIKESH NARAYAN SINGH DEO    M    34    Biju Janata Dal

2    NARASINGHA MISHRA    M    68    Indian National Congress

3    BALHAN SAGAR    M    51    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    SANGITA KUMARI SINGH DEO    F    47    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    DINGAR KUMBHAR    M    41    Samruddha Odisha

S18    11    OR    KALAHANDI    16-Apr-09    1    NAKULA MAJHI    M    66    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    BIKRAM KESHARI DEO    M    57    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    BHAKTA CHARAN DAS    M    52    Indian National Congress

4    SUBASH CHANDRA NAYAK    M    62    Biju Janata Dal

5    PARAMESWAR KAND    M    47    Samajwadi Party

6    BALARAM HOTA    M    33    Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

7    DAMBARUDHARA SUNANI    M    34    Independent

8    MAHESWAR BHOI    M    36    Independent

S18    12    OR    NABARANGPUR    16-Apr-09    1    CHANDRADHWAJ MAJHI    M    49    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    DOMBURU MAJHI    M    68    Biju Janata Dal

3    PARSURAM MAJHI    M    49    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    PRADEEP KUMAR MAJHI    M    33    Indian National Congress

S18    13    OR    KANDHAMAL    16-Apr-09    1    ASHOK SAHU    M    57    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    PAULA BALIARSING    M    52    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    RUDRAMADHAB RAY    M    71    Biju Janata Dal

4    SUZIT KUMAR PADHI    M    49    Indian National Congress

5    NAKUL NAYAK    M    46    Samajwadi Party

6    AJIT KUMAR NAYAK    M    26    Independent

7    KAMALA KANTA PANDEY    M    64    Independent

8    GHORABANA BEHERA    M    42    Independent

9    DEENABANDHU NAIK    M    45    Independent

S18    19    OR    ASKA    16-Apr-09    1    NITYANANDA PRADHAN    M    65    Biju Janata Dal

2    RAMACHANDRA RATH    M    63    Indian National Congress

3    SHANTI DEVI    F    71    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    KRISHNA DALABEHERA    M    43    Kalinga Sena

5    BIJAYA KUMAR MAHAPATRO    M    56    Revolutionary Socialist Party

6    SURJYA NARAYAN SAHU    M    37    Samruddha Odisha

7    KALICHARAN NAYAK    M    53    Independent

8    DEBASIS MISRA    M    48    Independent

9    K. SHYAM BABU SUBUDHI    M    73    Independent

S18    20    OR    BERHAMPUR    16-Apr-09    1    CHANDRA SEKHAR SAHU    M    58    Indian National Congress

2    PABITRA GAMANGO    M    35    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    BHARAT PAIK    M    50    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    SIDHANT MAHAPATRA    M    42    Biju Janata Dal

5    NIRAKAR BEHERA    M    35    Kalinga Sena

6    ALI RAZA ZIADI    M    30    Independent

7    KISHORE CHANDRA MAHARANA    M    61    Independent

8    A. RAGHUNATH VARMA    M    71    Independent

9    K. SHYAM BABU SUBUDHI    M    73    Independent

S18    21    OR    KORAPUT    16-Apr-09    1    UPENDRA MAJHI    M    29    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    GIRIDHAR GAMANG    M    56    Indian National Congress

3    JAYARAM PANGI    M    53    Biju Janata Dal

4    PAPANNA MUTIKA    M    65    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    KUMUDINI DISARI    F    34    Samruddha Odisha

6    MEGHANADA SABAR    M    40    Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)

S24    63    UP    MAHARAJGANJ    16-Apr-09    1    AJEET MANI    M    41    Samajwadi Party

2    GANESH SHANKER PANDEY    M    51    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    PANKAJ CHAUDHARY    M    38    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    HARSH VARDHAN    M    61    Indian National Congress

5    ABDWURRUF ANSARI    M    45    National Lokhind Party

6    PAWAN KUMAR    M    39    Republican Party of India (A)

7    RAM KISHUN NISHAD    M    52    Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

8    SATYA NARAYAN URF SATNARAYAN    M    58    Bharatiya Eklavya Party

9    OMPRAKASH CHATURVEDI    M    63    Independent

10    DILIP KUMAR    M    28    Independent

11    RAM NIVAS    M    37    Independent

12    LAL BIHARI    M    42    Independent

13    CHAUDHARY SANJAY SINGH PATEL    M    29    Independent

14    SHYAM SUNDER DAS CHAURASIA    M    28    Independent

15    HANUMAN    M    51    Independent

S24    64    UP    GORAKHPUR    16-Apr-09    1    ADITYANATH    M    36    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    MANOJ TIWARI MRIDUL    M    39    Samajwadi Party

3    LALCHAND NISHAD    M    67    Indian National Congress

4    VINAY SHANKAR TIWARI    M    41    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    AMAN    M    35    Ambedkar Samaj Party

6    JOKHAN PRASAD    M    46    Eklavya Samaj Party

7    DAYASHANKAR NISHAD    M    38    Apna Dal

8    RAJBAHADUR    M    28    Indian Justice Party

9    RAJMANI    M    46    Bharatiya Eklavya Party

10    RAJESH SAHANI    M    44    Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

11    SRINATH    M    29    Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

12    AJAY KUMAR    M    40    Independent

13    AWADHESH SINGH    M    32    Independent

14    OMPRAKASH SINGH    M    43    Independent

15    GOVIND    M    43    Independent

16    CHHEDILAL    M    59    Independent

17    NIRANJAN PRASAD    M    35    Independent

18    NEERAJ YADAV    M    31    Independent

19    DR. BRIJESH MANI TRIPATHI    M    44    Independent

20    MANOJ TIWARI    M    30    Independent

21    RAKESH KUMAR    M    38    Independent

22    RAJAN YADAV M.B.A.    M    31    Independent

23    RAMHIT NISHAD    M    53    Independent

24    LAL BAHADUR    M    68    Independent

25    VINOD SHUKLA    M    29    Independent

26    HARISHCHANDRA    M    42    Independent

S24    65    UP    KUSHI NAGAR    16-Apr-09    1    BRAMHA SHANKER    M    56    Samajwadi Party

2    KU. RATANJEET PRATAP NARAYAN SINGH    M    45    Indian National Congress

3    VIJAY DUBEY    M    41    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    SWAMI PRASAD MAURYA    M    54    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    ANIL    M    43    Republican Party of India (A)

6    KISHOR KUMAR    M    40    Indian Peace Party

7    K KUMAR    M    56    Purvanchal Rajya Banao Dal

8    JANGI    M    55    Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

9    DHEERAJ SHEKHAR SHRIWASTAWA    M    49    Rashtriya Lokwadi Party

10    BABU LAL    M    40    Bharatiya Republican Paksha

11    MATIULLAH    M    43    National Lokhind Party

12    MADAN LAL    M    46    Maulik Adhikar Party

13    AMEERUDDIN    M    31    Independent

14    JAGDISH    M    57    Independent

15    JAI GOVIND    M    35    Independent

16    DAROGA    M    37    Independent

17    RAMESH    M    35    Independent

18    RAM BRIKSH    M    54    Independent

S24    66    UP    DEORIA    16-Apr-09    1    GORAKH PRASAD JAISWAL    M    72    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    BALESHWAR YADAV    M    55    Indian National Congress

3    MOHAN SINGH    M    58    Samajwadi Party

4    SHRI PRAKASH MANI TRIPATHI    M    64    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    GANGA PRASAD KUSHWAHA    M    70    Purvanchal Rajya Banao Dal

6    JAGDISH KUMAR VERMA    M    36    Lokpriya Samaj Party

7    DHARMENDRA KUMAR    M    33    Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

8    MOTI LAL KUSHWAHA SHASTRI    M    59    Rashtriya Samanta Dal

9    SAFAYAT ALI    M    51    Peace Party

10    SARITA    F    27    Ambedkar Samaj Party

11    RAM KISHOR YADAV ALIAS VIDHAYAK    M    51    Independent

12    VIJAY JUAATHA    M    42    Independent

S24    67    UP    BANSGAON    16-Apr-09    1    KAMLESH PASWAN    M    33    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    MAHA BEER PRASAD    M    66    Indian National Congress

3    SHARADA DEVI    F    59    Samajwadi Party

4    SHREE NATH JI    M    58    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    CHANDRIKA    M    29    Rashtriya Jan-vadi Party (Krantikari)

6    RAMA SHANKER    M    37    Peace Party

7    RAM PRAVESH PRASAD    M    37    Eklavya Samaj Party

8    HARILAL    M    32    Bahujan Uday Manch

9    KU. KUNJAWATI    F    36    Independent

10    MANOJ KUMAR    M    29    Independent

11    RADHEYSHYAM    M    35    Independent

12    RAMKAWAL    M    56    Independent

13    RAMSAKAL    M    32    Independent

14    RAMA PASWAN    M    33    Independent

15    VINAI KUMAR    M    33    Independent

S24    68    UP    LALGANJ    16-Apr-09    1    DAROGA PRASAD SAROJ    M    60    Samajwadi Party

2    NEELAM SONKAR    F    33    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    DR. BALIRAM    M    56    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    HAREE PRASAD SONKER    M    50    Communist Party of India

5    MANBHAWAN    M    32    Bharatiya Republican Paksha

6    RAM DAYAL ALIAS MOHAN    M    32    Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

7    ACHCHHELAL    M    42    Independent

8    URMILA DEVI    F    27    Independent

9    CHANDRA RAM ALIAS CHANDU SAROJ    M    36    Independent

10    DHARMRAJ    M    55    Independent

11    SUKHNAYAN    M    29    Independent

S24    69    UP    AZAMGARH    16-Apr-09    1    AKBAR AHMAD DUMPY    M    57    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    ARUN KUMAR SINGH    M    63    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

3    DURGA PRASAD YADAV    M    56    Samajwadi Party

4    RAMAKANT YADAV    M    49    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH    M    49    Indian National Congress

6    JAI JAI RAM PRAJAPATI    M    36    Lokpriya Samaj Party

7    RAM BHAROS    M    34    Bahujan Uday Manch

8    VINOD    M    33    Janvadi Party(Socialist)

9    USMANA FARUQEE    F    27    Independent

10    KEDAR NATH GIRI    M    49    Independent

11    KHAIRUL BASHAR    M    56    Independent

12    DR. JAVED AKHTAR    M    54    Independent

13    DAAN BAHADUR YADAV    M    54    Independent

14    YADUNATH    M    31    Independent

15    RAM UJAGIR    M    45    Independent

16    RAM SINGH    M    35    Independent

S24    70    UP    GHOSI    16-Apr-09    1    ATUL KUMAR SINGH ANJAN    M    55    Communist Party of India

2    ARSHAD JAMAL ANSARI    M    43    Samajwadi Party

3    DARA SINGH CHAUHAN    M    50    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    RAM IQBAL    M    49    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    SUDHA RAI    F    54    Indian National Congress

6    AKHILESH    M    43    Janvadi Party(Socialist)

7    KAILASH YADAV    M    46    Peace Party

8    RAMESH ALIAS RAJU SINGH    M    41    Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

9    RAM BADAN KAUL    M    60    Bahujan Shakty

10    LALJI RAJBHAR    M    44    Bharatiya Samaj Dal

11    HARISH CHANDRA    M    62    Rashtriya Jan-vadi Party (Krantikari)

12    ASHOK KUMAR    M    27    Independent

13    ZAKIR HUSSAIN    M    45    Independent

14    PALAKDHARI    M    41    Independent

15    RAKESH    M    34    Independent

16    SUJIT KUMAR    M    34    Independent

S24    71    UP    SALEMPUR    16-Apr-09    1    DR. BHOLA PANDEY    M    55    Indian National Congress

2    RAMASHANKAR RAJBHAR    M    48    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    HARIKEWAL    M    71    Samajwadi Party

4    IZHAR    M    48    Peace Party

5    ZUBAIR    M    39    Nelopa(United)

6    JANG BAHADUR    M    50    Bharatiya Samaj Dal

7    FATE BAHADUR    M    35    Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

8    RAVISHANKAR SINGH “PAPPU”    M    38    Janata Dal (United)

9    RAMCHARAN    M    72    People’s Democratic Front

10    RAMDAYAL    M    57    Janvadi Party(Socialist)

11    RAMNAWAMI YADAV    M    37    Samajwadi Jan Parishad

12    RAMASHRAY CHAUHAN    M    55    Moderate Party

13    SRIRAM    M    50    Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

14    HARISHCHAND    M    48    Eklavya Samaj Party

15    AMEER    M    53    Independent

16    PARASURAM    M    56    Independent

17    FULENDRA    M    40    Independent

18    MAN JI    M    50    Independent

19    MAHESH    M    70    Independent

20    RAJENDRA ALIAS RAJAN    M    33    Independent

21    VINDHACHAL    M    44    Independent

22    SHAILENDRA    M    36    Independent

23    SATISH    M    37    Independent

24    SARVDAMAN    M    26    Independent

25    SANJAY    M    36    Independent

S24    72    UP    BALLIA    16-Apr-09    1    NEERAJ SHEKHAR    M    40    Samajwadi Party

2    MANOJ SINHA    M    50    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    SANGRAM SINGH YADAV    M    48    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    ARVIND KUMAR GOND    M    30    Gondvana Gantantra Party

5    KANHAIYA PRAJAPATI    M    44    Rashtriya Samanta Dal

6    NARAYAN RAJBHAR    M    32    Bharatiya Samaj Dal

7    RAJESH    M    40    Janvadi Party(Socialist)

8    RAMSAKAL    M    48    Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

9    ANANT    M    36    Independent

10    GANGADYAL    M    48    Independent

11    DIWAKAR    M    38    Independent

12    RAMJI    M    49    Independent

13    LALBABU    M    36    Independent

14    SHESHNATH    M    40    Independent

15    SHANKER RAM RAWAT    M    43    Independent

16    HARIHAR    M    73    Independent

S24    74    UP    MACHHLISHAHR    16-Apr-09    1    KAMLA KANT GAUTAM (K.K. GAUTAM)    M    66    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    TUFANI SAROJ    M    48    Samajwadi Party

3    RAJ BAHADUR    M    66    Indian National Congress

4    VIDYASAGAR SONKER    M    48    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    KRISHNA SEWAK SONKER    M    48    Janvadi Party(Socialist)

6    RAM CHARITRA    M    41    Apna Dal

7    VIJAYEE RAM    M    38    Ambedkar Samaj Party

8    SHEOMURAT RAM    M    71    Gondvana Gantantra Party

9    SUKHRAJ DINKAR    M    51    Rashtriya Swabhimaan Party

10    SUSHMA    F    29    Rashtriya Agraniye Dal

11    DINESH KUMAR    M    31    Independent

12    BALJIT    M    59    Independent

13    RAM DAWAR GAUTAM    M    41    Independent

14    VINOD KUMAR    M    40    Independent

15    SHYAM BIHARI KANNAUJIYA    M    39    Independent

16    SOHAN    M    46    Independent

S24    75    UP    GHAZIPUR    16-Apr-09    1    AFZAL ANSARI    M    55    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    PRABHUNATH    M    48    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    RADHEY MOHAN SINGH    M    43    Samajwadi Party

4    SURAJ RAM BAGI    M    52    Communist Party of India

5    ISHWARI PRASAD KUSHAWAHA    M    48    Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

6    DINESH    M    42    Rashtriya Samanta Dal

7    NANDLAL    M    67    Ambedkar Samaj Party

8    SHYAM NARAYAN    M    54    Rashtravadi Aarthik Swatantrata Dal

9    SATISH SHANKAR JAISAWAL    M    28    National Lokhind Party

10    SARAJU    M    67    Lok Dal

11    SURENDRA    M    43    Janvadi Party(Socialist)

12    ANIL    M    32    Independent

13    ASHOK (DR.ASHOK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)    M    54    Independent

14    BRAJENDRA NATH URF BIJENDRA    M    66    Independent

15    RAJESH    M    37    Independent

S24    76    UP    CHANDAULI    16-Apr-09    1    KAILASH NATH SINGH YADAV    M    46    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    JAWAHAR LAL JAISAWAL    M    51    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    RAMKISHUN    M    49    Samajwadi Party

4    SHAILENDRA KUMAR    M    40    Indian National Congress

5    CHANDRASHEKHAR    M    34    Republican Party of India

6    JAWAHIR    M    48    Pragatisheel Manav Samaj Party

7    JOKHU    M    45    Peoples Democratic Forum

8    TULASI    M    42    Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

9    RAJNATH    M    35    Bharatiya Republican Paksha

10    RAJESH SINGH    M    27    Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena

11    RAMAWATAR SHARMA ADVOCATE    M    38    Maulik Adhikar Party

12    RAMSEWAK YADAV    M    46    Rashtriya Lokhit Party

13    LALLAN    M    49    Indian Justice Party

14    SURENDRA PRATAP    M    36    Jai Bharat Samanta Party

15    DEVAROO    M    40    Independent

16    MUNNI LAL    M    66    Independent

17    SURAFARAJ AHMAD    M    29    Independent

18    HARI LAL    M    52    Independent

S24    77    UP    VARANASI    16-Apr-09    1    AJAY RAI    M    36    Samajwadi Party

2    MUKHTAR ANSARI    M    49    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    DR. MURLI MANOHAR JOSHI    M    73    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    DR. RAJESH KUMAR MISHRA    M    48    Indian National Congress

5    AWADHESH KUMAR KUSHWAHA    M    43    Rashtriya Samanta Dal

6    USHA SINGH    F    45    Rashtriya Agraniye Dal

7    KISHUN LAL    M    59    Indian Justice Party

8    VIJAY PRAKASH JAISWAL    M    43    Apna Dal

9    ER. SHYAM LAL VISHWAKARMA    M    61    Maulik Adhikar Party

10    ANAND KUMAR AMBASTHA    M    36    Independent

11    NARENDRA NATH DUBEY ADIG    M    36    Independent

12    PARVEZ QUADIR KHAN    M    38    Independent

13    PUSHP RAJ SAHU    M    47    Independent

14    RAJESH BHARTI    M    33    Independent

15    SATYA PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA    M    37    Independent

S24    79    UP    MIRZAPUR    16-Apr-09    1    ANIL KUMAR MAURYA    M    37    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    ANURAG SINGH    M    42    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    BAL KUMAR PATEL    M    48    Samajwadi Party

4    RAMESH DUBEY    M    66    Indian National Congress

5    AJAY SHANKER    M    33    Gondwana Mukti Sena

6    KAILASH    M    48    Bahujan Shakty

7    KHELADI    M    58    Gondvana Gantantra Party

8    JAGDISH    M    49    Apna Dal

9    PREM CHAND    M    45    Pragatisheel Manav Samaj Party

10    RADHE SHYAM    M    58    Bharatiya Republican Paksha

11    LALJI    M    48    Rashtriya Agraniye Dal

12    LALTI DEVI    F    54    Vikas Party

13    SHANKAR    M    38    Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)

14    SHYAM LAL    M    41    Eklavya Samaj Party

15    MOHD. SAGIR    M    41    National Loktantrik Party

16    TRILOK NATH VERMA    M    61    Indian Justice Party

17    ANOOP KUMAR    M    34    Independent

18    KRISHNA CHAND    M    40    Independent

19    KRISHNA CHAND SHUKLA    M    40    Independent

20    CHHABEELE    M    41    Independent

21    DANGAR    M    52    Independent

22    DULARI    F    61    Independent

23    MANIK CHAND    M    37    Independent

24    MUNNA LAL    M    34    Independent

25    RAM GOPAL    M    53    Independent

26    RAM RAJ    M    37    Independent

27    HANS KUMAR    M    37    Independent

S24    80    UP    ROBERTSGANJ    16-Apr-09    1    PAKAURI LAL    M    57    Samajwadi Party

2    RAM ADHAR JOSEPH    M    43    Indian National Congress

3    RAM CHANDRA TYAGI    M    54    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    RAM SHAKAL    M    47    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    GULAB    M    31    Peoples Democratic Forum

6    CHANDRA SHEKHAR    M    34    Janvadi Party(Socialist)

7    MUNNI DEVI    F    42    Rashtriya Samanta Dal

8    RAMESH KUMAR    M    31    Apna Dal

9    SHRAWAN KUMAR    M    41    Rashtrawadi Sena

10    RAMBRIKSHA    M    39    Independent

S26    1    CG    SARGUJA    16-Apr-09    1    DHAN SINGH DHURVE    M    38    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    BAL SINGH    M    38    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

3    BHANU PRATAP SINGH    M    42    Indian National Congress

4    MURARILAL SINGH    M    49    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    ANOOP MINJ    M    28    Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

6    KUMAIT B.D.O.    M    64    Janata Dal (United)

7    BHUPNATH SINGH MARAVI    M    43    Gondvana Gantantra Party

8    RAMDEO LAKRA    M    32    Chhattisgarh Vikas Party

9    RAMNATH CHERWA    M    36    Shoshit Samaj Dal

10    SOMNATH BHAGAT    M    46    Lok Jan Shakti Party

11    AMRIT SINGH MARAVI    M    35    Independent

12    JUGESHWAR    M    29    Independent

13    DHANESHWAR SINGH    M    39    Independent

14    SARJU XESS ORANW    M    43    Independent

15    SUNIL KUMAR SINGH KANHARE    M    27    Independent

16    SURAJ DEO SINGH KHAIRWAR    M    35    Independent

S26    2    CG    RAIGARH    16-Apr-09    1    BAHADUR SINGH RATHIA    M    57    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    VISHNU DEO SAI    M    45    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    HRIDAYARAM RATHIYA    M    43    Indian National Congress

4    DARSHAN SIDAR    M    32    Gondvana Gantantra Party

5    MEERA DEVI SINGH TIRKEY    F    39    Chhattisgarh Vikas Party

6    SHIRACHAND EKKA    M    29    Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

7    AMRIT TIRKEY    M    30    Independent

8    KAMRISH SINGH GOND    M    59    Independent

9    SANJAY TIRKEY    M    29    Independent

10    HALDHAR RAM SIDAR    M    42    Independent

S26    3    CG    JANJGIR-CHAMPA    16-Apr-09    1    SHRIMATI KAMLA DEVI PATLE    F    43    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    DAURAM RATNAKAR    M    51    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    DR.SHIVKUMAR DAHARIYA    M    45    Indian National Congress

4    B.R. CHAUHAN    M    59    Republican Party of India (A)

5    NEELKANTH WARE    M    59    Chhattisgarhi Samaj Party

6    PREM SHANKAR MAHILANGE URF PREM INDIA    M    39    Lok Jan Shakti Party

7    SANJEEV KUMAR KHARE    M    26    Chhattisgarh Vikas Party

8    ANANDRAM GILHARE    M    35    Independent

9    CHAITRAM SURYAVANSHI    M    62    Independent

10    DR.CHHAVILAL RATRE    M    55    Independent

11    MAYARAM NAT    M    50    Independent

12    RAMCHARAN PRADHAN ADHIWAKTA    M    51    Independent

S26    4    CG    KORBA    16-Apr-09    1    KARUNA SHUKLA    F    59    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    CHARANDAS MAHANT    M    54    Indian National Congress

3    VIJAY LAXMI SHARMA    F    41    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    KEDARNATH RAJWADE    M    28    Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

5    CHAITI DEVI MAHANT    F    49    Chhattisgarhi Samaj Party

6    BUDHWAR SINGH UIKEY    M    34    Rashtriya Gondvana Party

7    DR. VIPIN SINHA    M    40    Chhattisgarh Vikas Party

8    SANGEETA NIRMALKAR    F    32    Bharatiya Pichhra Dal

9    HIRASINGH MARKAAM    M    74    Gondvana Gantantra Party

10    GEND DAS MAHANT    M    35    Independent

11    CHARAN DAS    M    25    Independent

12    PAWAN KUMAR    M    38    Independent

13    FULESHWAR PRASAD SURJAIHA    M    75    Independent

14    RAMDAYAL ORAON    M    49    Independent

15    RAMLAKHAN KASHI    M    68    Independent

16    SHAMBHU PRASAD SHARMA ADHIWAKTA    M    62    Independent

17    SATRUPA    F    37    Independent

18    SANTOSH BANJARE    M    25    Independent

S26    5    CG    BILASPUR    16-Apr-09    1    DILIP SINGH JUDEV    M    60    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    ADVOCATE T.R.NIRALA    M    42    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    DR.RENU JOGI    F    56    Indian National Congress

4    UTTAM PRASAD DANSENA    M    27    Sunder Samaj Party

5    DR.GOJU PAUL    M    40    Republican Party of India (A)

6    DR.BALMUKUND SINGH MARAVI    M    41    Gondvana Gantantra Party

7    BALARAM SAHU    M    46    Bharatiya Pichhra Dal

8    MUKESH KUMAR SAHU    M    32    Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

9    SAPNA CHAKRABORTY    F    37    Lok Jan Shakti Party

10    ARJUN SHRIVAS GANGUAA    M    63    Independent

11    ANUJ DHRITLAHRE    M    34    Independent

12    ABDUL HAMID SIDDIQUE    M    43    Independent

13    ASHOK SHRIVASTAVA    M    37    Independent

14    UMESH SINGH    M    31    Independent

15    TUKLAL GARG    M    40    Independent

16    DAYA DAS LAHRE    M    65    Independent

17    DR.DAYA RAM DAYAL    M    60    Independent

18    DILIP KUMAR    M    30    Independent

19    DILIP GUPTA    M    38    Independent

20    DILIP SINGH    M    41    Independent

21    MANOJ KUMAR BIRKO    M    34    Independent

22    RAMESH AHUJA    M    43    Independent

23    RAMESH KUMAR LAHARE    M    36    Independent

24    RAJENDRA SAHU    M    29    Independent

25    RAJESH PRATAP    M    32    Independent

26    RAMBILAS SHARMA    M    52    Independent

27    B.P.VISWAKARMA    M    57    Independent

28    SHYAM BIHARI TRIVEDI    M    56    Independent

S26    6    CG    RAJNANDGAON    16-Apr-09    1    DEVWRAT SINGH    M    39    Indian National Congress

2    PRADHUMAN NETAM    M    32    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    MADHUSUDAN YADAV    M    38    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    GANGARAM NISHAD    M    48    Eklavya Samaj Party

5    NARAD KHOTHALIYA    M    48    Chhattisgarh Vikas Party

6    AJAY JAISWAL    M    35    Independent

7    AJAY PALI    M    32    Independent

8    JALAL MOHAMMAD QURESHI    M    45    Independent

9    DERHARAM LODHI    M    37    Independent

10    DILIP RATHOR SAMPADAK    M    40    Independent

11    BHAG CHAND VAIDHYA    M    48    Independent

12    MADAN YADAV    M    34    Independent

13    MANGAL DAS BANGARE    M    52    Independent

14    D.R.YADAV PRACHARYA    M    66    Independent

S26    7    CG    DURG    16-Apr-09    1    PRADEEP CHOUBEY    M    55    Indian National Congress

2    RAGHUNANDAN SAHU    M    34    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    SAROJ PANDEY    F    40    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    DEVIDAS KURRE    M    43    Chandigarh Vikas Party

5    DR. PANKAJ GOSOMI (PANDIT)    M    37    Republican Party of India

6    ANAND GAUTAM    M    35    Independent

7    TARACHAND SAHU    M    30    Independent

8    TARACHAND SAHU    M    66    Independent

9    TARACHAND SAHU    M    62    Independent

10    MASOOD KHAN    M    43    Independent

11    RATAN KUMAR KSHETRAPAL    M    61    Independent

12    RAJENDRA KUMAR SAHU    M    38    Independent

13    LAXMAN PRASAD    M    31    Independent

14    GURU DADA LOKESH MAHARAJ    M    56    Independent

15    SHITKARAN MHILWAR    M    40    Independent

S26    8    CG    RAIPUR    16-Apr-09    1    BHUPESH BAGHEL    M    47    Indian National Congress

2    RAMESH BAIS    M    61    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    VIDHYADEVI SAHU    F    54    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    ER. ASHOK TAMRAKAR    M    56    Jai Chhattisgarh Party

5    IMRRAN PASHA    M    33    Loktantrik Samajwadi Party

6    P.R. KHUNTE    M    54    Chhattisgarh Vikas Party

7    MADHUSUDAN MISHRA    M    49    Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha

8    SHAILENDRA BANJARE (SHAKTIPUTRA)    M    34    Shakti Sena (Bharat Desh)

9    SHANKAR LAL VARANDANI    M    45    Pyramid Party of India

10    HARGUN MEGHWANI    M    56    Akhil Bhartiya Sindhu Samajwadi Party

11    ARUN HARPAL    M    35    Independent

12    JAFAR HUSSAIN, BABABHAI (PURVA MUTVALLI)    M    57    Independent

13    MOH. JILANI ALIAS TANI    M    30    Independent

14    NAND KISHOR DEEP    M    48    Independent

15    NARESH BHISHMDEV DHIDHI    M    31    Independent

16    NAVIN GUPTA    M    35    Independent

17    NARAD NISHAD    M    33    Independent

18    PRAVEEN JAIN    M    44    Independent

19    BHARAT BHUSHAN PANDEY    M    45    Independent

20    MATHURA PRASAD TANDON    M    42    Independent

21    YASHWANT SAHU    M    35    Independent

22    RAJENDRA KUMAR SAHU    M    38    Independent

23    RAJENDRA SINGH THAKUR (ADVOCATE)    M    34    Independent

24    RAMKRISHNA VERMA    M    49    Independent

25    RAMCHARAN YADAV    M    33    Independent

26    SHOBHARAM GILHARE    M    38    Independent

27    SIYARAM DHRITLAHARE    M    34    Independent

28    SMT. SUSIL BAI BANJARE    F    36    Independent

29    SYED RASHID ALI    M    62    Independent

30    SANJAY BAGHEL    M    29    Independent

31    HAIDAR BHATI    M    38    Independent

32    SHRIKANT KASER    M    41    Independent

S26    9    CG    MAHASAMUND    16-Apr-09    1    CHANDULAL SAHU (CHANDU BHAIYA)    M    49    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    MOTILAL    M    44    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    MOTILAL SAHU    M    44    Indian National Congress

4    DR. ANAND MATAWALE (GURUJI)    M    38    Lok Bharati

5    KIRAN KUMAR DHRUW    M    44    Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

6    BAUDDH KUMAR KAUSHIK    M    37    Chhattisgarh Vikas Party

7    DR. LATA MARKAM    F    26    Republican Party of India (A)

8    SHRIDHAR CHANDRAKAR (PATEL)    M    40    Apna Dal

9    KHEDUBHARTI “SATYESH”    M    33    Independent

10    CHAMPA LAL PATEL    M    43    Independent

11    NARENDRA BHISHMDEV DHIDHI    M    34    Independent

12    NARAYANDAS INQALAB GANDHI    M    63    Independent

13    BHARAT DIWAN    M    29    Independent

14    RAMPRASAD CHAUHAN    M    46    Independent

15    SULTANSINGH SATNAM    M    58    Independent

S26    10    CG    BASTAR    16-Apr-09    1    AYTU RAM MANDAVI    M    44    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    BALIRAM KASHYAP    M    73    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    MANISH KUNJAM    M    42    Communist Party of India

4    SHANKAR SODI    M    44    Indian National Congress

5    CHANDRA SHEKHAR DHRUV (SHEKHAR)    M    42    Independent

6    MAYARAM NETAM ALIAS (FULSING SILADAR)    M    60    Independent

7    SUBHASH CHANDRA MOURYA    M    35    Independent

S26    11    CG    KANKER    16-Apr-09    1    SMT. PHOOLO DEVI NETAM    F    35    Indian National Congress

2    MIRA SALAM    F    32    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    SOHAN POTAI    M    49    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    JALSINGH SHORI    M    30    Chhattisgarhi Samaj Party

5    N. R. BHUARYA    M    50    Gondwana Mukti Sena

6    BHOM LAL    M    59    Apna Dal

7    MAYARAM NAGWANSHI    M    48    Gondvana Gantantra Party

8    G. R. RANA    M    62    Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

9    DEVCHAND MATLAM    M    31    Independent

10    PRAFUL MANDAVI    M    35    Independent

11    MAYARAM NETAM (FULSINGH SILEDAR)    M    60    Independent

S27    4    JH    CHATRA    16-Apr-09    1    ARUN KUMAR YADAV    M    41    Janata Dal (United)

2    DHIRAJ PRASAD SAHU    M    50    Indian National Congress

3    NAGMANI    M    46    Rashtriya Janata Dal

4    SUGAN MAHTO    M    56    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    KESHWAR YADAV    M    47    Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

6    PARAS NATH MANJHI    M    58    Akhil Bharatiya Manav Seva Dal

7    K.P. SHARMA    M    62    Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)

8    SURENDRA YADAV    M    36    Jharkhand Party

9    INDER SINGH NAMDHARI    M    62    Independent

10    DHIRENDRA AGRAWAL    M    53    Independent

11    RATNESH KUMAR GUPTA    M    47    Independent

S27    5    JH    KODARMA    16-Apr-09    1    TILAKDHARI PD. SINGH    M    65    Indian National Congress

2    PRANAV KUMAR VERMA    M    29    Rashtriya Janata Dal

3    LAXAMAN SAWARNKAR    M    63    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    BISHNU PRASAD BHAIYA    M    47    Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

5    SABHAPATI KUSHWAHA    M    61    Bahujan Samaj Party

6    UMESH CHANDRA TRIVEDI    M    41    Jharkhand Party

7    PRAMESHWAR YADAV    M    49    Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

8    BABULAL MARANDI    M    51    Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)

9    RAJKISHOR PRASAD MODI    M    54    Jharkhand Vikas Dal

10    RAJ KUMAR YADAV    M    37    Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

11    HADTAL DAS    M    43    Bahujan Shakty

12    ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA    M    35    Independent

13    KAMAL DAS    M    35    Independent

14    CHANDRA DHARI MAHTO    M    28    Independent

15    MANJOOR ALAM ANSARI    M    45    Independent

16    LAXAMAN DAS    M    37    Independent

S27    11    JH    KHUNTI    16-Apr-09    1    KARIYA MUNDA    M    72    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    NEIL TIRKEY    M    55    Indian National Congress

3    MARSHAL BARLA    M    36    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    THEODORE KIRO    M    58    Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)

5    NITIMA BODRA BARI    F    41    Jharkhand Party (Naren)

6    NISHIKANT HORO    M    55    Jharkhand Party

7    ANAND KUJUR    M    27    Independent

8    UMBULAN TOPNO    M    49    Independent

9    KARLUS BHENGRA    M    41    Independent

S27    12    JH    LOHARDAGA    16-Apr-09    1    JOKHAN BHAGAT    M    43    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    RAMESHWAR ORAON    M    63    Indian National Congress

3    SUDARSHAN BHAGAT    M    40    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    DEOSHARAN BHAGAT    M    45    All Jharkhand Students Union

5    BAHURA EKKA    M    61    Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)

6    BHUNESHWAR LOHRA    M    42    Lok Jan Vikas Morcha

7    RAMA KHALKHO    F    38    Jharkhand Janadikhar Manch

8    ARJUN BHAGAT    M    60    Independent

9    ETWA ORAON    M    45    Independent

10    GOPAL ORAON    M    56    Independent

11    CHAMRA LINDA    M    39    Independent

12    JAI PRAKASH BHAGAT    M    36    Independent

13    NAWAL KISHOR SINGH    M    51    Independent

14    PADMA BARAIK    F    25    Independent

15    SUKHDEO LOHRA    M    69    Independent

S27    13    JH    PALAMAU    16-Apr-09    1    KAMESHWAR BAITHA    M    56    Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

2    GHURAN RAM    M    42    Rashtriya Janata Dal

3    RADHA KRISHNA KISHORE    M    52    Janata Dal (United)

4    HIRA RAM TUPHANI    M    59    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    GANESH RAM    M    56    Jharkhand Party

6    JAWAHAR PASWAN    M    48    AJSU Party

7    NANDDEV RAM    M    70    Jharkhand Party (Naren)

8    PARVATI DEVI    F    34    Manav Mukti Morcha

9    PRABHAT KUMAR    M    31    Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)

10    RAJU GUIDE MAJHI    M    30    Akhil Bharatiya Manav Seva Dal

11    RAM NARESH RAM    M    36    Rashtravadi Aarthik Swatantrata Dal

12    BIRBAL RAM    M    28    Rashtriya Lok Dal

13    SATYENDRA KUMAR PASWAN    M    30    Bharatiya Samta Samaj Party

14    SUSHMA MEHTA    F    31    Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)

15    JITENDRA RAM    M    31    Independent

16    NARESH KUMAR PASWAN    M    29    Independent

17    BRAJMOHAN RAM    M    48    Independent

18    BHOLA RAM    M    32    Independent

19    MUNESHWAR RAM    M    58    Independent

20    RAM PRASAD RAM    M    58    Independent

21    SUNESHWAR BAITHA    M    54    Independent

S27    14    JH    HAZARIBAGH    16-Apr-09    1    KISHOR KUMAR PANDEY    M    35    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD MEHTA    M    64    Communist Party of India

3    YASHWANT SINHA    M    71    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    SHIVLAL MAHTO    M    34    Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

5    SAURABH NARAIN SINGH    M    34    Indian National Congress

6    CHANDRA PRAKASH CHOUDHARY    M    40    All Jharkhand Students Union

7    DIGAMBER KU. MEHTA    M    42    Samajwadi Party

8    BRAJ KISHORE JAISWAL    M    67    Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)

9    DEONATH MAHTO    M    29    Independent

10    MAHENDRA KISHORE MEHTA    M    38    Independent

11    MD. MOINUDDIN AHMED    M    32    Independent

12    LALAN PRASAD    M    34    Independent

13    SNEHLATA DEVI    F    49    Independent

U01    1    AN    ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS    16-Apr-09    1    SMTI. R. S. UMA BHARATHY    F    44    Nationalist Congress Party

2    SHRI. KULDEEP RAI SHARMA    M    41    Indian National Congress

3    SHRI. P. R. GANESHAN    M    71    Rashtriya Janata Dal

4    SHRI TAPAN KUMAR BEPARI    M    51    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

5    SHRI. BISHNU PADA RAY    M    59    Bharatiya Janata Party

6    SHRI. M. S. MOHAN    M    50    Bahujan Samaj Party

7    SHRI. N. K. P. NAIR    M    54    Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

8    SHRI. PRADEEP KUMAR EKKA    M    37    Jharkhand Disom Party

9    SHRI. T. ALI    M    37    Independent

10    DR. THANKACHAN    M    50    Independent

11    SHRI. VAKIATH VALAPPIL KHALID    M    40    Independent

U06    1    LD    LAKSHADWEEP    16-Apr-09    1    MUHAMMED HAMDULLA SAYEED A.B    M    26    Indian National Congress

2    DR. P. POOKUNHIKOYA    M    60    Nationalist Congress Party

3    DR. K P MUTHUKOYA    M    57    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    LUKMANUL HAKEEM    M    32    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

S14    1    MN    INNER MANIPUR    22-Apr-09    1    DR. THOKCHOM MEINYA    M    58    Indian National Congress

2    THOUNAOJAM CHAOBA    M    70    Manipur People’s Party

3    MOIRANGTHEM NARA    M    58    Communist Party of India

4    WAHENGBAM NIPAMACHA SINGH    M    78    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    L. KSHETRANI DEVI    F    50    Rashtriya Bahujan Congress Party

6    ABDUL RAHMAN    M    58    Independent

7    NONGMAITHEM HOMENDRO SINGH    M    45    Independent

S01    23    AP    KAKINADA    23-Apr-09    1    DOMMETI SUDHAKAR    M    51    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    M.M.PALLAMRAJU    M    46    Indian National Congress

3    BIKKINA VISWESWARA RAO    M    34    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    VASAMSETTY SATYA    M    44    Telugu Desam

5    ALURI VIJAYA LAKSHMI    F    64    Lok Satta Party

6    UDAYA KUMAR KONDEPUDI    M    36    Trilinga Praja Pragati Party

7    GALI SATYAVATHI    F    40    Republican Party of India

8    GIDLA SIMHACHALAM    M    50    Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

9    CHALAMALASETTY SUNIL    M    39    Praja Rajyam Party

10    NAMALA SATYANARAYANA    M    45    Rajyadhikara Party

11    N.PALLAMRAJU    M    52    Ajeya Bharat Party

12    BUGATHA BANGARRAO    M    48    Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)

13    AKAY SURYANARAYANA    M    50    Independent

14    CHAGANTI SURYA NARAYANA MURTHY    M    44    Independent

15    DANAM LAZAR BABU    M    42    Independent

16    BADAMPUDI BABURAO    M    51    Independent

S01    24    AP    AMALAPURAM    23-Apr-09    1    KOMMABATTULA UMA MAHESWARA RAO    M    65    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    GEDDAM SAMPADA RAO    M    39    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    DOCTOR GEDELA VARALAKSHMI    F    55    Telugu Desam

4    G.V.HARSHA KUMAR    M    50    Indian National Congress

5    AKUMARTHI SURYANARAYANA    M    50    Trilinga Praja Pragati Party

6    KIRAN KUMAR BINEPE    M    43    Praja Bharath Party

7    P.V.CHAKRAVARTHI    M    54    Republican Party of India (Khobragade)

8    POTHULA PRAMEELA DEVI    F    55    Praja Rajyam Party

9    BHEEMARAO RAMJI MUTHABATHULA    M    39    Pyramid Party of India

10    MASA RAMADASU    M    46    Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

11    YALANGI RAMESH    M    45    Independent

S01    25    AP    RAJAHMUNDRY    23-Apr-09    1    ARUNA KUMAR VUNDAVALLI    M    54    Indian National Congress

2    M. MURALI MOHAN    M    68    Telugu Desam

3    VAJRAPU KOTESWARA RAO    M    43    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    SOMU VEERRAJU    M    51    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    UPPALAPATI VENKATA KRISHNAM RAJU    M    69    Praja Rajyam Party

6    DATLA RAYA JAGAPATHI RAJU    M    50    Pyramid Party of India

7    DR. PALADUGU CHANDRA MOULI    M    69    Lok Satta Party

8    MEDAPATI PAPIREDDY    M    30    Trilinga Praja Pragati Party

9    MEDA SRINIVAS    M    39    Rashtriya Praja Congress (Secular)

10    PARAMATA GANESWARA RAO    M    46    Independent

11    MUSHINI RAMAKRISHNA RAO    M    51    Independent

12    VASAMSETTY NAGESWARA RAO    M    46    Independent

13    SANABOINA SUBHALAKSHMI    F    44    Independent

S01    26    AP    NARSAPURAM    23-Apr-09    1    KALIDINDI VISWANADHA RAJU    M    39    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    THOTA SITA RAMA LAKSHMI    F    59    Telugu Desam

3    BAPIRAJU KANUMURU    M    61    Indian National Congress

4    BHUPATHIRAJU SRINIVASA VARMA    M    41    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    ALLURI YUGANDHARA RAJU    M    44    Pyramid Party of India

6    GUBBALA TAMMAIAH    M    61    Praja Rajyam Party

7    NAVUNDRU RAJENDRA PRASAD    M    44    Bharatheeya Sadharma Samsthapana Party

8    MANORAMA SANKU    F    62    Lok Satta Party

9    M V R RAJU    M    35    Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

10    KALIDINDI BHIMARAJU    M    73    Independent

S01    27    AP    ELURU    23-Apr-09    1    KAVURI SAMBASIVA RAO    M    65    Indian National Congress

2    KODURI VENKATA SUBBA RAJU    M    46    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    PILLELLLI SUNIL    M    35    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    MAGANTI VENKATESWARA RAO(BABU)    M    49    Telugu Desam

5    Y.V.S.V. PRASADA RAO (YERNENI PRASADA RAO)    M    61    Pyramid Party of India

6    KOLUSU PEDA REDDAIAH YADAV    M    67    Praja Rajyam Party

7    SAVANAPUDI NAGARAJU    M    48    Marxist Communist Party of India (S.S. Srivastava)

8    SIRIKI SRINIVAS    M    32    Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

9    KASI NAIDU KAMMILI    M    39    Independent

10    TANUKU SEKHAR    M    45    Independent

11    DODDA KAMESWARA RAO    M    54    Independent

12    DOWLURI GOVARDHAN    M    32    Independent

S01    28    AP    MACHILIPATNAM    23-Apr-09    1    KONAKALLA NARAYANA RAO    M    59    Telugu Desam

2    CHIGURUPATI RAMALINGESWARA RAO    M    33    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    BADIGA RAMAKRISHNA    M    66    Indian National Congress

4    BHOGADI RAMA DEVI    F    56    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    KOPPULA VENKATESWARA RAO    M    45    Lok Satta Party

6    CHENNAMSETTI RAMACHANDRAIAH    M    60    Praja Rajyam Party

7    YARLAGADDA RAMAMOHANA RAO    M    44    Bharatheeya Sadharma Samsthapana Party

8    VARA LAKSHMI KONERU    F    59    Pyramid Party of India

9    G.V. NAGESWARA RAO    M    25    Independent

10    YENDURI SUBRAMANYESWA RAO ( MANI )    M    50    Independent

S01    29    AP    VIJAYAWADA    23-Apr-09    1    LAGADAPATI RAJA GOPAL    M    45    Indian National Congress

2    LAKA VENGALA RAO    M    38    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    VAMSI MOHAN VALLABHANENI    M    38    Telugu Desam

4    SISTLA NARASIMHA MURTHY    M    63    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    DEVINENI KISHORE KUMAR    M    59    Lok Satta Party

6    RAGHAVA RAO JAKKA    M    60    Pyramid Party of India

7    RAJIV CHANUMOLU    M    43    Praja Rajyam Party

8    APPIKATLA JAWAHAR    M    44    Independent

9    KRISHNA MURTHY SUNKARA    M    46    Independent

10    JAKKA TARAKA MALLIKHARJUNA RAO    M    42    Independent

11    DEVERASETTY RAVINDRA BABU    M    35    Independent

12    DEVIREDDY RAVINDRANATHA REDDY    M    36    Independent

13    PERUPOGU VENKATESWARA RAO    M    41    Independent

14    BAIPUDI NAGESWARA RAO    M    30    Independent

15    BOPPA VENKATESWARA RAO    M    42    Independent

16    BOLISETTY HARIBABU    M    46    Independent

17    VEERLA SANJEEVA RAO    M    44    Independent

18    VENKATA RAO P.    M    44    Independent

19    SENAPATHI CHIRANJEEVI    M    36    Independent

20    SHAIK MASTAN    M    28    Independent

S01    30    AP    GUNTUR    23-Apr-09    1    MALLELA BABU RAO    M    61    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    YADLAPATI SWARUPARANI    F    51    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    RAJENDRA MADALA    M    42    Telugu Desam

7    SAMBASIVA RAO RAYAPATI    M    65    Indian National Congress

8    AMANULLA KHAN    M    37    Lok Satta Party

9    KOMMANABOINA LAKSHMAIAH    M    39    Rajyadhikara Party

11    THOTA CHANDRA SEKHAR    M    47    Praja Rajyam Party

12    YARRAKULA TULASI RAM YADAV    M    29    Samajwadi Party

13    VELAGAPUDI LAKSHMANA RAO    M    59    Pyramid Party of India

14    SRINIVASA RAO THOTAKURA    M    34    Ajeya Bharat Party

S01    31    AP    NARASARAOPET    23-Apr-09    1    BALASHOWRY VALLABHANENI    M    43    Indian National Congress

2    BEJJAM RATNAKARA RAO    M    48    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    VALLEPU KRUPA RAO    M    51    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    VENUGOPALA REDDY MODUGULA    M    42    Telugu Desam

7    GANUGAPENTA UTTAMA REDDY    M    30    Lok Satta Party

8    S.G. MASTAN VALI    M    31    Pyramid Party of India

9    RAMADUGU VENKATA SUBBA RAO    M    45    Samajwadi Party

11    SHAIK SYED SAHEB    M    65    Praja Rajyam Party

13    SAI PRASAD EDARA    M    42    Bharatheeya Sadharma Samsthapana Party

14    ATCHALA NARASIMHA RAO    M    39    Independent

15    ANNAMRAJU VENUGOPALA MADHAVA RAO    M    37    Independent

17    KATAMARAJU NALAGORLA    M    61    Independent

19    YAMPATI VEERANJANEYA REDDY    M    38    Independent

21    SRINIVASA REDDY KESARI    M    40    Independent

S01    32    AP    BAPATLA    23-Apr-09    1    DARA SAMBAIAH    M    62    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    PANABAKA LAKSHMI    F    50    Indian National Congress

3    BATTULA ROSAYYA    M    52    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    MALYADRI SRIRAM    M    55    Telugu Desam

5    GARIKAPATI SUDHAKAR    M    37    Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

6    NUTHAKKI RAMA RAO    M    61    Praja Rajyam Party

7    GUDIPALLI SATHYA BABUJI    M    40    Independent

8    GORREMUCHU CHINNA RAO    M    42    Independent

9    GOLLA BABU RAO    M    34    Independent

10    DEVARAPALLI BUJJI BABU    M    34    Independent

S01    33    AP    ONGOLE    23-Apr-09    1    MANDAVA VASUDEVA    M    56    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    MADDULURI MALAKONDAIAH YADAV    M    47    Telugu Desam

3    MAGUNTA SRINIVASULU REDDY    M    55    Indian National Congress

4    CHALUVADI SRINIVASARAO    M    38    Pyramid Party of India

5    DR,NARAYANAM RADHA DEVI    F    57    Lok Satta Party

6    PIDATHALA SAI KALPANA    F    50    Praja Rajyam Party

7    SHAIK SHAJAHAN    M    49    United Women Front

8    GARRE RAMAKRISHNA    M    34    Independent

9    DAMA MOHANA RAO    M    53    Independent

10    NALAMALAPU LAKSHMINARASAREDDY    M    40    Independent

11    YATHAPU KONDAREDDY    M    28    Independent

S01    34    AP    NANDYAL    23-Apr-09    1    NASYAM MOHAMMED FAROOK    M    57    Telugu Desam

2    S.MOHAMMED ISMAIL    M    39    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    S.P.Y.REDDY    M    59    Indian National Congress

4    ABDUL SATTAR . G    M    26    B. C. United Front

5    PICHHIKE NARENDRA DEV    M    39    Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

6    BHUMA VENKATA NAGI REDDY    M    45    Praja Rajyam Party

7    RAMA JAGANNADHA REDDY TAMIDELA    M    34    Lok Satta Party

8    SADHU VEERA VENKATA RAMANAIAH    M    35    Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

9    AMBATI RAMESWARA REDDY    M    35    Independent

10    K.ARTHER PANCHARATNAM    M    44    Independent

11    B.P.KAMBAGIRI SWAMY    M    36    Independent

12    GALI RAMA SUBBA REDDY    M    33    Independent

13    A.U.FAROOQ    M    25    Independent

14    G.BALASWAMY    M    37    Independent

15    T.MAHESH NAIDU    M    28    Independent

16    B.V.RAMI REDDY    M    47    Independent

17    B.R.L.REDDY    M    40    Independent

18    VENNUPUSA VENKATESHWARA REDDY    M    35    Independent

19    SINGAM VENKATESHWARA REDDY    M    35    Independent

20    T.SRINUVASULU    M    38    Independent

21    V.SESHI REDDY    M    33    Independent

S01    35    AP    KURNOOL    23-Apr-09    1    KOTLA JAYA SURYA PRAKASH REDDY    M    57    Indian National Congress

2    GADDAM RAMAKRISHNA    M    56    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    B.T.NAIDU    M    36    Telugu Desam

4    RAVI SUBRAMANYAM K.A.    M    39    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    JALLI VENKATESH    M    38    Lok Satta Party

6    DR.DANDIYA KHAJA PEERA    M    55    Praja Rajyam Party

7    B.NAGA JAYA CHANDRA REDDY    M    35    Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

8    DR.P.R.PARAMESWAR REDDY    M    36    Pyramid Party of India

9    DEVI RAMALINGAPPA    M    44    Independent

10    V.V. RAMANA    M    38    Independent

11    RAJU    M    45    Independent

S01    36    AP    ANANTAPUR    23-Apr-09    1    ANANTHA VENKATA RAMI REDDY    M    52    Indian National Congress

2    AMBATI RAMA KRISHNA REDDY    M    41    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    KALAVA SRINIVASULU    M    44    Telugu Desam

4    GADDALA NAGABHUSHANAM    M    45    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    AMARNATH    M    32    Lok Satta Party

6    KRUSHNAPURAM GAYATHRI DEVI    F    36    Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)

7    MANSOOR    M    56    Praja Rajyam Party

8    G HARI    M    29    Pyramid Party of India

9    T CHANDRA SEKHAR    M    30    Independent

10    DEVELLA MURALI    M    44    Independent

11    K P NARAYANA SWAMY    M    41    Independent

12    J C RAMANUJULA REDDY    M    52    Independent

S01    37    AP    HINDUPUR    23-Apr-09    1    KRISTAPPA NIMMALA    M    52    Telugu Desam

2    P KHASIM KHAN    M    53    Indian National Congress

3    NARESH CINE ACTOR    M    45    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    B.S.P.SREERAMULU    M    30    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    KADAPALA SREEKANTA REDDY    M    56    Praja Rajyam Party

6    NIRANJAN BABU. K    M    30    Lok Satta Party

7    S. MUSKIN VALI    M    26    Pyramid Party of India

8    K. JAKEER    M    40    Independent

9    B. NAGABHUSHANA RAO    M    76    Independent

10    P. PRASAD (PEETLA PRASAD)    M    32    Independent

S01    38    AP    KADAPA    23-Apr-09    1    JAMBAPURAM MUNI REDDY    M    31    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    Y.S. JAGAN MOHAN REDDY    M    36    Indian National Congress

3    PALEM SRIKANTH REDDY    M    45    Telugu Desam

4    VANGALA SHASHI BHUSHAN REDDY    M    37    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    KASIBHATLA SAINATH SARMA    M    38    Rajyadhikara Party

6    N. KISHORE KUMAR REDDY    M    38    Janata Dal (Secular)

7    KUNCHAM VENKATA SUBBA REDDY    M    42    Rayalaseema Rashtra Samithi

8    DR. KHALEEL BASHA    M    60    Praja Rajyam Party

9    GAJJALA RAMA SUBBA REDDY    M    57    Pyramid Party of India

10    GUDIPATI. PRASANNA KUMAR    M    55    Lok Satta Party

11    C. GOPI NARASIMHA REDDY    M    31    Janata Dal (United)

12    CHINNAPA REDDY KOMMA    M    41    Bharatiya Jan Shakti

13    Y. SEKHARA REDDY    M    47    Republican Party of India (A)

14    S. ALI SHER    M    47    Independent

15    THIMMAPPAGARI VENKATA SIVA REDDY    M    47    Independent

16    V. NARENDRA    M    39    Independent

17    S. RAJA MADIGA    M    46    Independent

18    YELLIPALAM RAMESH REDDY    M    35    Independent

19    SIVANARAYANA REDDY CHADIPIRALLA    M    39    Independent

20    J. SUBBARAYUDU    M    51    Independent

S01    39    AP    NELLORE    23-Apr-09    1    S. PADMA NAGESWARA RAO    M    58    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    BATHINA NARASIMHA RAO    M    65    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    MEKAPATI RAJAMOHAN REDDY    M    64    Indian National Congress

4    VANTERU VENU GOPALA REDDY    M    59    Telugu Desam

5    JANA RAMACHANDRAIAH    M    56    Praja Rajyam Party

6    VEMURI BHASKARA RAO    M    36    Lok Satta Party

7    SIDDIRAJU SATYANARAYANA    M    43    Pyramid Party of India

8    KARIMULLA    M    42    Independent

9    MUCHAKALA CHANDRA SEKHAR YADAV    M    40    Independent

10    VENKATA BHASKAR REDDY DIRISALA    M    37    Independent

11    SYED HAMZA HUSSAINY    M    46    Independent

S01    40    AP    TIRUPATI    23-Apr-09    1    CHINTA MOHAN    M    54    Indian National Congress

2    VARLA RAMAIAH    M    57    Telugu Desam

3    N.VENKATASWAMY    M    77    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    JUVVIGUNTA VENKATESWARLU    M    37    Lok Satta Party

5    DEGALA SURYANARAYANA    M    34    Pyramid Party of India

6    DHANASEKHAR GUNDLURU    M    41    Republican Party of India (A)

7    VARAPRASADA RAO. V    M    55    Praja Rajyam Party

8    OREPALLI VENKATA KRISHNA PRASAD    M    43    Independent

9    KATTAMANCHI PRABAKHAR    M    40    Independent

10    YALAVADI MUNIKRISHNAIAH    M    64    Independent

S01    41    AP    RAJAMPET    23-Apr-09    1    ANNAYYAGARI SAI PRATHAP    M    64    Indian National Congress

2    ALLAPUREDDY. HARINATHA REDDY    M    69    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    RAMESH KUMAR REDDY REDDAPPAGARI    M    44    Telugu Desam

4    SUNKARA SREENIVAS    M    42    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    DR. ARAVA. VENKATA SUBBA REDDY    M    38    Pyramid Party of India

6    ADI NARAYANA REDDY .V    M    40    Bharatheeya Sadharma Samsthapana Party

7    NAGESWARA RAO EDAGOTTU    M    38    Lok Satta Party

8    D.A. SRINIVAS    M    36    Praja Rajyam Party

9    SHAIK AMEEN PEERAN    M    39    Ambedkar National Congress

10    ASADI VENKATADRI    M    41    Independent

11    INDRA PRAKASH    M    32    Independent

12    KASTHURI OBAIAH NAIDU    M    55    Independent

13    B. KRISHNAPPA    M    32    Independent

14    PULA RAGHU    M    44    Independent

15    HAJI MOHAMMAD AZAM    M    82    Independent

S01    42    AP    CHITTOOR    23-Apr-09    1    JAYARAM DUGGANI    M    60    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    THIPPESWAMY M    M    55    Indian National Congress

3    NARAMALLI SIVAPRASAD    M    57    Telugu Desam

4    B.SIVAKUMAR    M    40    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    A. AMARNADH    M    37    Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

6    TALARI MANOHAR    M    54    Praja Rajyam Party

7    G. VENKATACHALAM    M    29    Lok Satta Party

S03    4    AS    DHUBRI    23-Apr-09    1    ANWAR HUSSAIN    M    62    Indian National Congress

2    BADRUDDIN AJMAL    M    54    Assam United Democratic Front

3    ARUN DAS    M    39    Rashtrawadi Sena

4    ALOK SEN    M    37    Samajwadi Party

5    SOLEMAN ALI    M    45    Independent

6    SHAHJAHAN ALI    M    39    Independent

7    SOLEMAN KHANDAKER    M    53    Independent

8    TRIPTI KANA MAZUMDAR CHOUDHURY    F    45    Independent

9    NUR MAHAMMAD    M    61    Independent

10    MINHAR ALI MANDAL    M    61    Independent

S03    5    AS    KOKRAJHAR    23-Apr-09    1    SABDA RAM RABHA    M    39    Asom Gana Parishad

2    SANSUMA KHUNGGUR BWISWMUTHIARY    M    49    Bodaland Peoples Front

3    URKHAO GWRA BRAHMA    M    45    Independent

S03    6    AS    BARPETA    23-Apr-09    1    ABDUS SAMAD AHMED    M    41    Assam United Democratic Front

2    MD. AMIR ALI    M    42    Rashtriya Janata Dal

3    ISMAIL HUSSAIN    M    55    Indian National Congress

4    DURGESWAR DEKA    M    54    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

5    BHUPEN RAY    M    49    Asom Gana Parishad

6    ABU CHAND MAHMMAD    M    63    Republican Party of India (A)

7    ABDUL KADDUS    M    35    Samajwadi Party

8    KANDARPA LAHKAR    M    53    Rashtravadi Janata Party

9    MD. DILIR KHAN    M    42    Muslim League Kerala State Committee

10    MUIJ UDDIN MAHMUD    M    51    Lok Jan Shakti Party

11    ABDUL KADER    M    41    Independent

12    GOLAP HUSSAIN MAZUMDER    M    35    Independent

13    DEWAN JOYNAL ABEDIN    M    65    Independent

14    BHADRESWAR DAS    M    40    Independent

S03    7    AS    GAUHATI    23-Apr-09    1    AKSHAY RAJKHOWA    M    49    Nationalist Congress Party

2    BIJOYA CHAKRAVARTY    F    70    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    CAPT. ROBIN BORDOLOI    M    67    Indian National Congress

4    SONABOR ALI    M    58    Assam United Democratic Front

5    AMBU BORA    M    78    Revolutionary Communist Party of India (Rasik Bhatt)

6    DEEPAK KALITA    M    34    Samajwadi Party

7    SHIMANTA BRAHMA    M    48    Rashtrawadi Sena

8    AMIT BARUA    M    42    Independent

9    KAZI NEKIB AHMED    M    51    Independent

10    DEVA KANTA RAMCHIARY    M    46    Independent

11    BRIJESH ROY    M    30    Independent

12    RINA GAYARY DAS    F    41    Independent

S03    8    AS    MANGALDOI    23-Apr-09    1    BADIUJ ZAMAL    M    33    Assam United Democratic Front

2    MADHAB RAJBANGSHI    M    53    Indian National Congress

3    RAMEN DEKA    M    55    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    DINA NATH DAS    M    65    Bodaland Peoples Front

5    PARVEEN SULTANA    F    42    All India Minorities Front

6    RABINDRA NATH HAZARIKA    M    72    Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

7    RATUL KUMAR CHOUDHURY    M    38    Samajwadi Party

8    LANKESWAR ACHARJYA    M    45    Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

9    LUCYMAI BASUMATARI    F    58    Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

10    AROON BAROOA    M    53    Independent

11    PRODEEP KUMAR DAIMARY    M    42    Independent

12    BHUPENDRA NATH KAKATI    M    62    Independent

13    MANOJ KUMAR DEKA    M    55    Independent

S03    9    AS    TEZPUR    23-Apr-09    1    JITEN SUNDI    M    64    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

2    DEBA ORANG    M    54    Assam United Democratic Front

3    MONI KUMAR SUBBA    M    51    Indian National Congress

4    JOSEPH TOPPO    M    60    Asom Gana Parishad

5    ARUN KUMAR MURMOO    M    33    Bharat Vikas Morcha

6    PARASHMONI SINHA    M    33    Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

7    JUGANANDA HAZARIKA    M    42    Samajwadi Party

8    RUBUL SARMA    M    52    Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

9    REGINOLD V. JOHNSON    M    45    Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

10    KALYAN KUMAR DEORI BHARALI    M    69    Independent

11    DANIEL DAVID JESUDAS    M    66    Independent

12    MD. NAZIR AHMED    M    56    Independent

13    DR. PRANAB KR. DAS    M    41    Independent

14    PRASANTA BORO    M    32    Independent

15    RUDRA PARAJULI    M    52    Independent

S03    10    AS    NOWGONG    23-Apr-09    1    ANIL RAJA    M    51    Indian National Congress

2    RAJEN GOHAIN    M    57    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    SIRAJ UDDIN AJMAL    M    52    Assam United Democratic Front

4    PHEIROIJAM IBOMCHA SINGH    M    60    All India Forward Bloc

5    BIPIN SAIKIA    M    55    Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

6    BIREN DAS    M    48    Rashtrawadi Sena

7    BHUPEN CHANDRA MUDOI    M    55    Republican Party of India (A)

8    LIAQAT HUSSAIN    M    40    Lok Jan Shakti Party

9    ASHIT DUTTA    M    47    Independent

10    NAZRUL HAQUE MAZARBHUIYAN    M    55    Independent

11    PUSPA KANTA BORA    M    49    Independent

12    BIMALA PRASAD TALUKDAR    M    46    Independent

13    HERAMBA MOHAN PANDIT    M    45    Independent

S03    11    AS    KALIABOR    23-Apr-09    1    GUNIN HAZARIKA    M    61    Asom Gana Parishad

2    DIP GOGOI    M    57    Indian National Congress

3    SIRAJ UDDIN AJMAL    M    52    Assam United Democratic Front

4    KAMAL HAZARIKA    M    48    Independent

5    PAUL NAYAK    M    40    Independent

6    PRADEEP DUTTA    M    42    Independent

7    BINOD GOGOI    M    38    Independent

8    MRIDUL BARUAH    M    37    Independent

S03    12    AS    JORHAT    23-Apr-09    1    KAMAKHYA TASA    M    34    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    DRUPAD BORGOHAIN    M    68    Communist Party of India

3    BIJOY KRISHNA HANDIQUE    M    77    Indian National Congress

4    ABINASH KISHORE BORAH    M    30    Rashtrawadi Sena

5    BIREN NANDA    M    48    Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

6    NAVAPROKASH SONOWAL    M    36    Independent

7    RAJ KUMAR DOWARAH    M    43    Independent

8    SUJIT SAHU    M    38    Independent

S03    13    AS    DIBRUGARH    23-Apr-09    1    SRI PABAN SINGH GHATOWAR    M    60    Indian National Congress

2    SRI ROMEN CH. BORTHAKUR    M    48    Nationalist Congress Party

3    SRI RATUL GOGOI    M    31    Communist Party of India

4    SRI SARBANANDA SONOWAL    M    47    Asom Gana Parishad

5    SRI GONGARAM KAUL    M    39    Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

6    NIHARIKA BORPATRA GOHAIN GOGOI    F    30    Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

7    IMTIAZ HUSSAIN    M    31    Independent

8    FRANCIS DHAN    M    40    Independent

9    LAKHI CHARAN SWANSI    M    34    Independent

10    SIMA GHOSH    F    40    Independent

S03    14    AS    LAKHIMPUR    23-Apr-09    1    DR. ARUN KR. SARMA    M    52    Asom Gana Parishad

2    BHOGESWAR DUTTA    M    63    Communist Party of India

3    RANEE NARAH    F    45    Indian National Congress

4    GANGADHAR DUTTA    M    39    Shivsena

5    DEBNATH MAJHI    M    30    Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)

6    PRAN JYOTI BORPATRA GOHAIN    M    26    Rashtrawadi Sena

7    MINU BURAGOHAIN    F    50    Samajwadi Party

8    RATNESWAR GOGOI    M    63    All India Forward Bloc

9    LALIT MILI    M    53    Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

10    SONAMONI DAS    M    39    Lok Jan Shakti Party

11    ASAP SUNDIGURIA    M    62    Independent

12    PRASHANTA GOGOI    M    35    Independent

13    BHUMIDHAR HAZARIKA    M    38    Independent

14    RANOJ PEGU    M    45    Independent

15    RABIN DEKA    M    54    Independent

S04    1    BR    VALMIKI NAGAR    23-Apr-09    1    DILIP VERMA    M    52    Nationalist Congress Party

2    BAIDYANATH PRASAD MAHTO    M    51    Janata Dal (United)

3    MANAN MISHRA    M    48    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    MOHAMMAD SHAMIM AKHTAR    M    37    Indian National Congress

5    RAGHUNATH JHA    M    63    Rashtriya Janata Dal

6    BIRENDRA PRASAD GUPTA    M    40    Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

7    SHAILENDRA KUMAR GARHWAL    M    38    Loktantrik Samata Dal

8    AMBIKA SINGH    M    53    Independent

9    UMESH    M    36    Independent

10    DEORAJ RAM    M    31    Independent

11    FAKHRUDDIN    M    37    Independent

12    MAGISTER YADAV    M    42    Independent

13    MANOHAR MANOJ    M    40    Independent

14    RAMASHANKAR PRASAD    M    35    Independent

15    RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY    M    51    Independent

16    SATYANARAIN YADAV    M    28    Independent

S04    2    BR    PASCHIM CHAMPARAN    23-Apr-09    1    ANIRUDH PRASAD ALIAS SADHU YADAV    M    46    Indian National Congress

2    PRAKASH JHA    M    55    Lok Jan Shakti Party

3    RAMASHRAY SINGH    M    65    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

4    SHAMBHU PRASAD GUPTA    M    50    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    DR. SANJAY JAISWAL    M    44    Bharatiya Janata Party

6    FAIYAZUL AZAM    M    71    Janata Dal (Secular)

7    MANOJ KUMAR    M    44    Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

8    SYED SHAMIM AKHTAR    M    48    Loktantrik Samata Dal

9    NAFIS AHAMAD    M    35    Independent

10    SHRIMAN MISHRA    M    41    Independent

11    SYED IRSHAD AKHTER    M    32    Independent

S04    3    BR    PURVI CHAMPARAN    23-Apr-09    1    AKHILESH PD. SINGH    M    40    Rashtriya Janata Dal

2    ARVIND KR. GUPTA    M    29    Indian National Congress

3    GAGANDEO YADAV    M    59    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    RADHA MOHAN SINGH    M    59    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    RAMCHANDRA PD.    M    51    Communist Party of India

6    UMESH KR. SINGH    M    43    Samajwadi Janata Party (Rashtriya)

7    NAGENDRA SAHANI    M    33    Loktantrik Samata Dal

8    SURESH KR. RAJAK    M    45    Indian Justice Party

9    SURESH KR. RAI    M    41    Bajjikanchal Vikas Party

10    JHAGARU MAHATO    M    48    Independent

11    PARASNATH PANDEY    M    48    Independent

12    MD. MURTAZA ANSARI(DR. LAL)    M    40    Independent

S04    4    BR    SHEOHAR    23-Apr-09    1    MD. ANWARUL HAQUE    M    58    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    MD. TANVEER ZAFER    M    33    Communist Party of India

3    RAMA DEVI    F    60    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    LOVELY ANAND    M    35    Indian National Congress

5    SITARAM SINGH    M    60    Rashtriya Janata Dal

6    ARUN SAH    M    30    Bharatiya Loktantrik Party(Gandhi-Lohiawadi)

7    BASDEO SAH    M    36    Indian Justice Party

8    SHATRUGHANA SAHU    M    38    Bharatiya Jantantrik Janta Dal

9    AJAY KUMAR PANDEY    M    36    Independent

10    CHANDRIKA PRASAD    M    34    Independent

11    MOHAMMAD FIROZ AHAMAD    M    28    Independent

12    MOHSIN    M    29    Independent

13    YOGENDRA RAM    M    38    Independent

14    RAM ASHISH, MAHTO    M    64    Independent

15    SUNIL SINGH    M    44    Independent

S04    5    BR    SITAMARHI    23-Apr-09    1    ARJUN ROY    M    37    Janata Dal (United)

2    MAYA SHANKAR SHARAN    M    47    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    SAMIR KUMAR MAHASETH    M    49    Indian National Congress

4    SITARAM YADAV    M    61    Rashtriya Janata Dal

5    S. ABU DAUJANA    M    41    Loktantrik Samata Dal

6    CHITARANJAN GIRI    M    42    Rashtriya Pragati Party

7    MOHAMMAD AFZAL PAINTHER    M    44    Ambedkar National Congress

8    SHANKAR SINHA    M    51    Revolutionary Socialist Party

9    CHANDRIKA PRASAD    M    34    Independent

10    ZAHID    M    30    Independent

11    DINESH PRASAD    M    40    Independent

12    PAPPU KUMAR MISHRA    M    30    Independent

13    MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA    M    39    Independent

14    RAVINDRA KUMAR    M    36    Independent

15    RAM KISHORE PRASAD    M    71    Independent

16    SONE LAL SAH    M    61    Independent

S04    6    BR    MADHUBANI    23-Apr-09    1    ABDULBARI SIDDIKI    M    62    Rashtriya Janata Dal

2    LAXMANKANT MISHRA    M    48    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    DR SHAKEEL AHAMAD    M    52    Indian National Congress

4    HUKM DEO NARAYAN YADAV    M    72    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    DR HEMCHANDRA JHA    M    48    Communist Party of India

6    MINTU KUMAR SINGH    M    30    Jago Party

7    MISHRI LAL YADAV    M    39    Rashtriya Krantikari Janata Party

8    RAMCHANDRA YADAV    M    65    Krantikari Samyavadi Party

9    RAM SAGAR SAHANI    M    51    Indian Justice Party

10    MD ZINNUR    M    47    Independent

11    RAVINDRA THAKUR    M    40    Independent

12    RAJESHWAR YADAV    M    37    Independent

13    SANJAY KUMAR MAHTO    M    36    Independent

14    HARIBHUSHAN THAKUR “BACHOL”    M    44    Independent

S04    7    BR    JHANJHARPUR    23-Apr-09    1    KRIPANATH PATHAK    M    65    Indian National Congress

2    GAURI SHANKAR YADAV    M    36    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    DEVENDRA PRASAD YADAV    M    53    Rashtriya Janata Dal

4    MANGANI LAL MANDAL    M    60    Janata Dal (United)

5    DR KIRTAN PRASAD SINGH    M    50    Loktantrik Samata Dal

6    YOGNATH MANDAL    M    36    Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

7    OM PRAKASH    M    27    Independent

8    NATHUNI YADAV    M    57    Independent

9    FIROZ ALAM    M    38    Independent

10    VIVEKA NAND JHA    M    33    Independent

11    SHANKAR PRASAD    M    26    Independent

S04    14    BR    DARBHANGA    23-Apr-09    1    AJAY KUMAR JALAN    M    49    Indian National Congress

2    MD. ALI ASHRAF FATMI    M    53    Rashtriya Janata Dal

3    KIRTI AZAD    M    48    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    YUGESHWAR SAHNI    M    55    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    KUMARI SURESHWARI    F    60    Rashtriya Mazdoor Ekta Party

6    MD. KHURSHID ALAM    M    46    Apna Dal

7    DURGANAND MAHAVIR NAYAK    M    37    Bharatiya Jantantrik Janta Dal

8    MD. NIZAMUDDIN    M    36    Indian Justice Party

9    SATYANARAYAN MUKHIA    M    41    Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

10    ABDUR RAHIM    M    49    Independent

11    GOVIND ACHARAY    M    27    Independent

12    BHARAT YADAV    M    54    Independent

13    LALBAHADUR YADAV    M    35    Independent

14    PROF. HARERAM ACHARAY    M    49    Independent

S04    15    BR    MUZAFFARPUR    23-Apr-09    1    CAPTAIN JAI NARAYAN PRASAD NISHAD    M    78    Janata Dal (United)

2    BHAGWANLAL SAHNI    M    57    Lok Jan Shakti Party

3    VINITA VIJAY    F    41    Indian National Congress

4    SAMEER KUMAR    M    41    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    JITENDRA YADAV    M    35    Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

6    DINESH KUMAR KUSHWAHA    M    32    Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

7    DEVENDRA RAKESH    M    49    Bajjikanchal Vikas Party

8    NEELU SINGH    F    36    Proutist Sarva Samaj

9    MAHENDRA PRASAD    M    63    Rashtriya Pragati Party

10    MITHILESH KUMAR    M    40    Rashtra Sewa Dal

11    MOHAMMAD SHAMIM    M    31    Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

12    MD. RAHAMTULLAHA    M    37    Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh

13    RAM DAYAL RAM    M    48    All India Forward Bloc

14    REYAJ AHMAD ATISH    M    62    Jago Party

15    MD. SALEEM    M    36    Rashtravadi Janata Party

16    ASHOK KUMAR LALAN    M    37    Independent

17    AHMAD RAZA    M    31    Independent

18    GEORGE FERNANDES    M    78    Independent

19    TARKESHWAR PASWAN    M    38    Independent

20    VIJENDRA CHAUDHARY    M    42    Independent

21    VINOD PASWAN    M    35    Independent

22    SHAMBHU SAHNI    M    37    Independent

23    SADANAND KISHORE THAKUR    M    38    Independent

24    SYED ALAMDAR HUSSAIN    M    27    Independent

S04    16    BR    VAISHALI    23-Apr-09    1    RAGHUVANSH PRASAD SINGH    M    62    Rashtriya Janata Dal

2    VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA    M    38    Janata Dal (United)

3    SHANKAR MAHTO    M    37    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    HIND KESRI YADAV    M    58    Indian National Congress

5    PUNAMRI DEVI    F    37    United Women Front

6    PRAMOD KUMAR SHARMA    M    27    Bajjikanchal Vikas Party

7    BADRI PASWAN    M    39    Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

8    BALAK NATH SAHANI    M    39    Indian Justice Party

9    LALJI KUMAR RAKESH    M    35    Rashtra Sewa Dal

10    BINOD PANDIT    M    29    Lokpriya Samaj Party

11    INDARDEO RAI    M    46    Independent

12    JITENDRA PRASAD    M    34    Independent

S04    21    BR    HAJIPUR    23-Apr-09    1    DASAI CHOWDHARY    M    52    Indian National Congress

2    MAHESHWAR DAS    M    54    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    RAM VILAS PASWAN    M    61    Lok Jan Shakti Party

4    RAM SUNDAR DAS    M    88    Janata Dal (United)

5    DINESH CHANDRA BHUSHAN    M    36    Loktantrik Samata Dal

6    NAND LAL PASWAN    M    47    Independent

7    PRATIMA KUMARI    F    33    Independent

8    RAJENDRA KUMAR PASWAN    M    54    Independent

9    RAM TIRTH PASWAN    M    59    Independent

10    VISHWA VIJAY KUMAR VIDHYARTHI    M    30    Independent

11    SANJAY PASHWAN    M    30    Independent

S04    22    BR    UJIARPUR    23-Apr-09    1    ASWAMEDH DEVI    F    40    Janata Dal (United)

2    ALOK KUMAR MEHTA    M    40    Rashtriya Janata Dal

3    RAMDEO VERMA    M    62    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

4    VIJAYWANT KUMAR CHOUDHARY    M    60    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    SHEEL KUMAR ROY    M    40    Indian National Congress

6    CHANDRA DEO ROY    M    48    Socialist Party (Lohia)

7    JAI NARAYAN SAH    M    53    Bajjikanchal Vikas Party

8    JITENDRA KUMAR ROY    M    32    Shivsena

9    TOSHAN SAH    M    62    Rashtriya Pragati Party

10    MD. TAUKIR    M    40    Samata Party

11    MASSOD HASSAN    M    29    Muslim League Kerala State Committee

12    RAMNATH SINGH    M    36    Rashtra Sewa Dal

13    ARJUN SAHNI    M    28    Independent

14    PRADEEP KUMAR    M    41    Independent

15    BRAJESH KUMAR NIRALA    M    51    Independent

16    MANSOOR    M    42    Independent

17    MOHAN PAUL    M    47    Independent

18    MOHAMMAD KURBAN    M    43    Independent

19    RATAN SAHNI    M    46    Independent

20    RAM SAGAR MAHTO    M    45    Independent

21    SANJAY KUMAR JHA    M    36    Independent

22    SUJIT KUMAR BHAGAT    M    29    Independent

S04    23    BR    SAMASTIPUR    23-Apr-09    1    DR. ASHOK KUMAR    M    54    Indian National Congress

2    MAHESWER HAZARI    M    38    Janata Dal (United)

3    RAM CHANDRA PASWAN    M    47    Lok Jan Shakti Party

4    BINDESHWAR PASWAN    M    59    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    UPENDRA PASWAN    M    42    Loktantrik Samata Dal

6    JEEBACHH PASWAN    M    41    Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

7    RANDHIR PASWAN    M    27    Independent

8    RAJA RAM DAS    M    56    Independent

9    REKHA KUMARI    F    29    Independent

10    SHIVCHANDRA PASWAN    M    31    Independent

11    SATISH MAHTO    M    33    Independent

S05    1    GA    NORTH GOA    23-Apr-09    1    CHRISTOPHER FONSECA    M    55    Communist Party of India

2    JITENDRA RAGHURAJ DESHPRABHU    M    53    Nationalist Congress Party

3    RAUT PANDURANG DATTARAM    M    62    Maharashtrawadi Gomantak

4    SHRIPAD YESSO NAIK    M    56    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    UPENDRA CHANDRU GAONKAR    M    48    Shivsena

6    NARACINVA SURYA SALGAONKAR    M    51    Independent

7    MARTHA D’ SOUZA    F    55    Independent

S05    2    GA    SOUTH GOA    23-Apr-09    1    COSME FRANCISCO CAITANO SARDINHA    M    62    Indian National Congress

2    ADV. NARENDRA KESHAV SAWAIKAR    M    42    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    ADV. RAJU MANGESHKAR ALIAS RAJENDRA NAIK    M    52    Communist Party of India

4    ROHIDAS HARICHANDRA BORKAR    M    63    Save Goa Front

5    MATANHY SALDANHA    M    60    United Goans Democratic Party

6    DIAS JAWAHAR    M    53    Independent

7    DERICK DIAS    M    41    Independent

8    FRANCISCO ANTONIO JOAO DE PHILOMENO FERNANDES    M    66    Independent

9    MULLA SALIM    M    25    Independent

10    SALUNKE SMITA PRAVEEN    F    38    Independent

11    HAMZA KHAN    M    57    Independent

S09    5    JK    UDHAMPUR    23-Apr-09    1    ADREES AHMAD TABBASUM    M    45    Communist Party of India

2    BALBIR SINGH    M    53    Jammu & Kashmir Peoples Democratic Party

3    PROF. BHIM SINGH    M    69    Jammu & Kashmir National Panthers Party

4    RAKESH WAZIR    M    29    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    CH. LAL SINGH    M    50    Indian National Congress

6    DR. NIRMAL SINGH    M    53    Bharatiya Janata Party

7    BODH RAJ    M    42    Backward Classes Democratic Party, J&K

8    RAJESH MANCHANDA    M    40    Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

9    KANCHAN SHARMA    F    40    Bharatiya Bahujan Party

10    MASTER WILLIAM GILL    M    60    All India Forward Bloc

11    ATUL SHARMA    M    30    Independent

12    DEV RAJ    M    57    Independent

13    MOHD. YOUSUF    M    46    Independent

14    NARESH DOGRA    M    40    Independent

S10    1    KA    CHIKKODI    23-Apr-09    1    KATTI RAMESH VISHWANATH    M    44    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    PRAKASH BABANNA HUKKERI    M    62    Indian National Congress

3    SHIVANAND WANTAMURI SIDDAMALLAPPA    M    42    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    BANASHANKARI BHIMAPPA ITTAPPA    M    32    Independent

5    MALLAPPA MARUTI KHATANVE    M    60    Independent

6    YASHWANT MANOHAR SUTAR    M    32    Independent

7    SHAILA SURESH KOLI    F    37    Independent

S10    2    KA    BELGAUM    23-Apr-09    1    AMARSINH VASANTRAO PATIL    M    49    Indian National Congress

2    ANGADI SURESH CHANNABASAPPA    M    55    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    A. B. PATIL    M    56    Janata Dal (Secular)

4    RAMANAGOUDA SIDDANGOUDA PATIL    M    66    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    ALLAPPA RAMAPPA PATIL    M    31    Independent

6    KASTURI BASANAGOUDA BHAVI    F    40    Independent

7    MOHAN. H. GADIWADDAR    M    29    Independent

8    RAMCHANDRA MAREPPA TORGAL(CHALAWADI)    M    66    Independent

9    VIJAYKUMAR JEENDATTA UPADHYE    M    47    Independent

10    HANAJI ASHOK PANDU    M    28    Independent

S10    4    KA    BIJAPUR    23-Apr-09    1    ALMELKAR VILASABABU BASALINGAPPA    M    46    Janata Dal (Secular)

2    KANAMADI SUDHAKAR MALLESH    M    54    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    PRAKASH KUBASING RATHOD    M    48    Indian National Congress

4    RAMESH CHANDAPPA JIGAJINAGI    M    57    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    NARASAPPA TIPPANNA BANDIWADDAR    M    48    Sarvodaya Karnataka Paksha

6    LAMANI CHANDRAKANT RUPASING    M    38    Lok Jan Shakti Party

7    ARAKERI NIRMALA SRINIVAS    F    35    Independent

8    CHALAWADI RAMANNA    M    54    Independent

9    SEVALAL SOMASHEKAR PURAPPA    M    46    Independent

10    HARIJAN AMBANNA TUKARAM    M    33    Independent

S10    5    KA    GULBARGA    23-Apr-09    1    BABU HONNA NAIK    M    55    Janata Dal (Secular)

2    MALLIKARJUN KHARGE    M    67    Indian National Congress

3    MAHADEV. B. DHANNI    M    51    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    REVUNAIK BELAMGI    M    70    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    DR. K. T. PALUSKAR    M    53    Prabuddha Republican Party

6    RAVIKUMAR SHALIMANI SEDAM    M    34    Ambedkar National Congress

7    SHANKER KODLA    M    73    Janata Dal (United)

8    SHANKAR JADHAV    M    48    Bharatiya Peoples Party

9    H.V. DIWAKAR    M    46    Independent

10    SHIVAKUMAR . KOLLUR    M    44    Independent

S10    6    KA    RAICHUR    23-Apr-09    1    K.DEVANNA NAIK    M    56    Janata Dal (Secular)

2    PAKKIRAPPA.S.    M    51    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    RAJA VENKATAPPA NAIK    M    52    Indian National Congress

4    SHIVAKUMAR    M    42    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    COM II. V.H.MASTER    M    73    Independent

6    COMRADE V.MUDUKAPPA NAYAK    M    36    Independent

7    R.MUDUKAPPA NAYAK    M    44    Independent

8    K.SOMASHEKHAR    M    43    Independent

S10    7    KA    BIDAR    23-Apr-09    1    GURUPADAPPA NAGMARPALLI    M    25    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    JAGANNATH.R.JAMADAR    M    25    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    N.DHARAM SINGH    M    25    Indian National Congress

4    SUBHASH TIPPANNA NELGE    M    25    Janata Dal (Secular)

5    ADVOCATE MOULVI ZAMEERUDDIN    M    25    National Development Party

6    BHASKAR BABU PATERPALLI    M    25    Indian Christian Secular Party

7    SHRAVAN SANGONDA BHANDE    M    25    Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

8    SUBHASH CHANDRA G.KHAPATE    M    25    Laghujan Samaj Vikas Party

9    AMRUTHAPPA.M.D    M    25    Independent

10    MD ARSHAD AHMED ANSARI    M    25    Independent

11    KHAJA SAMEEUDDIN KHAJA MOINUDDIN    M    25    Independent

12    JADHAV VENKAT RAO GYANOBA RAO    M    25    Independent

13    DONGAPURE SHANT KUMAR    M    25    Independent

14    DEVENDRAPPA SANGRAMAPPA PATIL    M    25    Independent

15    NARSAPPA MUTHANGI    M    25    Independent

16    PARMESHWAR RAMCHANDRA    M    25    Independent

17    PASHAMIYA ESMAIL SAB    M    25    Independent

18    BASWARAJ PAILWAN OKALLI    M    25    Independent

19    MANJILE MIYYA PEER SAB QURESH    M    25    Independent

20    MD OSMAN ALI LAKHPATI    M    25    Independent

21    MUFTI SHAIKH ABDUL GAFFAR QASMI    M    25    Independent

22    YEVATE PATIL SHRIMANT    M    25    Independent

23    YASHWANTH NARSING    M    25    Independent

24    SHIVARAJ TIMMANNA BOKKE    M    25    Independent

25    SAMEEUDDIN BANDELI    M    25    Independent

26    SURESH SWAMY TALGHATKER    M    25    Independent

27    SYED QUBUL ULLA HUSSIANI SAJID    M    25    Independent

S10    8    KA    KOPPAL    23-Apr-09    1    ANSARI IQBAL    M    50    Janata Dal (Secular)

2    BASAVARAJ RAYAREDDY    M    53    Indian National Congress

3    SHIVAPUTRAPPA GUMAGERA    M    42    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    SHIVARAMAGOUDA SHIVANAGOUDA    M    56    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    ZAKEER    M    30    Lok Jan Shakti Party

6    BASAVARAJ KARADI WADDARAHATTI    M    27    Janata Dal (United)

7    BHARADWAJ    M    63    Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)

8    ISHWARAPPA J    M    52    Independent

9    UPPARA HANUMANTAPPA    M    33    Independent

10    GOUSIA BEGUM    F    31    Independent

11    CHAKRAVARTI NAYAK T    M    70    Independent

12    CHANDRASHEKAR    M    37    Independent

13    NAJEER HUSAIN    M    41    Independent

14    PUJAR D.H    M    42    Independent

15    MAREMMA YANKAPPA    F    40    Independent

16    SHARABHAYYA HIREMATH    M    27    Independent

17    SHIVAKUMAR NAVALI SIDDAPPA TONTAPUR    M    44    Independent

18    HANDI RAFIQSAB    M    53    Independent

S10    9    KA    BELLARY    23-Apr-09    1    T. NAGENDRA    M    44    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    J. SHANTHA    F    35    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    N.Y. HANUMANTHAPPA    M    69    Indian National Congress

4    CHOWDAPPA    M    29    Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)

5    D. GANGANNA    M    59    Independent

6    B. RAMAIAH    M    60    Independent

7    A. RAMANJANAPPA    M    41    Independent

S10    12    KA    UTTARA KANNADA    23-Apr-09    1    ANANTKUMAR HEGDE    M    40    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    ALVA MARGARET    F    67    Indian National Congress

3    HADAPAD BASAVARAJ DUNDAPPA    M    28    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    V D HEGADE    M    68    Janata Dal (Secular)

5    ELISH KOTIYAL    M    44    Janata Dal (United)

6    D M GURAV    M    49    Shivsena

7    ABDUL RASHEED SHAIKH    M    44    Independent

8    UDAY BABU KHALVADEKAR    M    57    Independent

9    KHAZI RAHMATULLA ABDUL WAHAB    M    60    Independent

10    L P M NAIK    M    39    Independent

11    YASHWANT TIMMANNA NIPPANIKAR    M    58    Independent

S10    18    KA    CHITRADURGA    23-Apr-09    1    JANARDHANA SWAMY    M    41    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    M JAYANNA    M    58    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    DR. B THIPPESWAMY    M    37    Indian National Congress

4    M RATHNAKAR    M    42    Janata Dal (Secular)

5    SHASHISHEKAR NAIK    M    46    Rashtriya Janata Dal

6    M KUMBAIAH    M    56    Independent

7    GANESHA    M    48    Independent

8    K H DURGASIMHA    M    61    Independent

9    RAMACHANDRA    M    49    Independent

10    B SUJATHA    F    33    Independent

11    HANUMANTHAPPA TEGNOOR    M    59    Independent

S10    19    KA    TUMKUR    23-Apr-09    1    ASHOK    M    59    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    P. KODANDARAMAIAH    M    69    Indian National Congress

3    G.S. BASAVARAJU    M    67    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    S.P. MUDDAHANUMEGOWDA    M    55    Janata Dal (Secular)

5    SREE GOWRISHANKARA SWAMIGALU    M    63    Samajwadi Party

6    D.R. NAGARAJA    M    53    Independent

7    G. NAGENDRA    M    34    Independent

8    NIRANJANA C.S    M    29    Independent

9    MOHAMED KHASIM    M    47    Independent

10    SHASIBHUSHANA    M    34    Independent

S10    23    KA    BANGALORE RURAL    23-Apr-09    1    H.D.KUMARASWAMY    M    49    Janata Dal (Secular)

2    TEJASVINI GOWDA    F    42    Indian National Congress

3    MOHAMED HAFEEZ ULLAH    M    54    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    C. P. YOGEESHWARA    M    45    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    C.THOPAIAH    M    56    Janata Dal (United)

6    I VENKATESWARA REDDY    M    55    Pyramid Party of India

7    AGNISHREENIVAS    M    30    Independent

8    D.KUMARASWAMY    M    43    Independent

9    KUMARASWAMY C    M    28    Independent

10    KRISHNAPPA    M    46    Independent

11    Y.CHINNAPPA    M    33    Independent

12    A CHOWRAPPA    M    44    Independent

13    DR. K PADMARAJAN    M    50    Independent

14    K.PUTTAMADEGOWDA    M    40    Independent

15    T.M.MANCHEGOWDA    M    62    Independent

S10    24    KA    BANGALORE NORTH    23-Apr-09    1    D. B. CHANDRE GOWDA    M    73    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    C. K. JAFFER SHARIEF    M    75    Indian National Congress

3    PADMAA K. BHAT    F    43    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    R. SURENDRA BABU    M    48    Janata Dal (Secular)

5    M. TIPPUVARDHAN    M    39    Bharatiya Praja Paksha

6    ANCHAN KHANNA    M    34    Independent

7    KANYA KUMAR    M    36    Independent

8    G S KUMAR    M    68    Independent

9    C. KRISHNAMURTHY    M    45    Independent

10    B K CHANDRA    M    38    Independent

11    T. R. CHANDRAHASA    M    45    Independent

12    ABDUL JALEEL    M    39    Independent

13    ZAFER MOHIUDDIN    M    48    Independent

14    JOSEPH SOLOMON    M    39    Independent

15    L. NAGARAJ    M    52    Independent

16    V. PRASANNA KUMAR    M    38    Independent

17    H. PILLAIAH    M    46    Independent

18    T. B. MADWARAJA    M    33    Independent

19    MEER LAYAQ HUSSAIN    M    42    Independent

20    K. A. MOHAN    M    51    Independent

21    S. M. RAJU    M    52    Independent

22    L. LAKSHMAIAH    M    64    Independent

23    MU. VENKATESHAIAH    M    50    Independent

24    VENKATESA SETTY    M    63    Independent

25    H. A. SHIVAKUMAR    M    30    Independent

26    K. SATHYANARAYANA    M    57    Independent

27    SYED AKBAR BASHA    M    50    Independent

28    N. HARISH GOWDA    M    33    Independent

S10    25    KA    BANGALORE CENTRAL    23-Apr-09    1    ZAMEER AHMED KHAN. B.Z    M    43    Janata Dal (Secular)

2    P. C. MOHAN    M    45    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    VIJAY RAJA SINGH    M    37    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    H.T.SANGLIANA    M    67    Indian National Congress

5    IFTHAQUAR ALI BHUTTO    M    37    Ambedkar National Congress

6    J.D.ELANGOVAN    M    64    Indian Justice Party

7    S M KRISHNA    M    44    Bharatiya Praja Paksha

8    B KRISHNA PRASAD    M    55    Proutist Sarva Samaj Party

9    A.S. PAUL    M    60    Akhila India Jananayaka Makkal Katchi (Dr. Issac)

10    D.C. PRAKASH    M    41    Karnataka Thamizhar Munnetra Kazhagam

11    K.PRABHAKARA REDDY    M    61    Kannada Chalavali Vatal Paksha

12    T.K.PREMKUMAR    M    45    Pyramid Party of India

13    ABHIMANI NARENDRA    M    50    Independent

14    M.A. ASHWATHA NARAYANA SETTY    M    64    Independent

15    K UMA    F    46    Independent

16    UMASHANKAR    M    42    Independent

17    K.S.S.IYENGAR    M    77    Independent

18    B.M.KRISHNAREDDY    M    64    Independent

19    S.KODANDARAM    M    50    Independent

20    C.V.GIDDAPPA    M    55    Independent

21    A.CHANDRASHEKAR    M    45    Independent

22    JAYARAMA    M    60    Independent

23    K.NARASIMHA    M    38    Independent

24    B.K NARAYANA SWAMY    M    52    Independent

25    P.PARTHIBAN    M    34    Independent

26    MEER LAYAQ HUSSAIN    M    42    Independent

27    B.MOHAN VELU    M    39    Independent

28    R. RAJ    M    49    Independent

29    E. RAMAKRISHNAIAH    M    50    Independent

30    K.H.RAMALINGAREDDY    M    41    Independent

31    VIJAYA BHASKAR N    M    61    Independent

32    DR.D. R.VENKATESH GOWDA    M    82    Independent

33    SHAFFI AHMED    M    50    Independent

34    S.N. SHARMA    M    67    Independent

35    SHASHIKUMAR A.R    M    43    Independent

36    K.SHIVARAMANNA    M    55    Independent

37    SHAIK BAHADUR    M    54    Independent

S10    26    KA    BANGALORE SOUTH    23-Apr-09    1    ANANTH KUMAR    M    49    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    KRISHNA BYRE GOWDA    M    36    Indian National Congress

3    NAHEEDA SALMA S    F    47    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    PROF.RADHAKRISHNA    M    63    Janata Dal (Secular)

5    B.M.GOVINDRAJ NAIK    M    38    Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha

6    P.JOHNBASCO    M    37    Akhila India Jananayaka Makkal Katchi (Dr. Issac)

7    VATAL NAGARAJ    M    60    Kannada Chalavali Vatal Paksha

8    B.SHIVARAMAPPA    M    62    Pyramid Party of India

9    ABHIMAANI NARENDRA    M    50    Independent

10    KHADER ALI KHAN    M    39    Independent

11    GANESH HANUMANTARAO MOKHASHI    M    58    Independent

12    CAPT. G.R. GOPINATH    M    57    Independent

13    K.C.JANARDHAN    M    46    Independent

14    DR.JAYALAKSHMI.H.G.    F    48    Independent

15    K.M.NARAYANA    M    54    Independent

16    MADESH.C    M    40    Independent

17    MURALIDHARA.D.J.    M    44    Independent

18    RAVI KUMARA.T.    M    26    Independent

19    SUGANDHARAJE URS    M    59    Independent

20    SANTHOSH MIN.B    M    33    Independent

S10    27    KA    CHIKKBALLAPUR    23-Apr-09    1    C.ASWATHANARAYANA    M    59    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    C.R.MANOHAR    M    29    Janata Dal (Secular)

3    M.VEERAPPA MOILY    M    69    Indian National Congress

4    HENNURU LAKSHMINARAYANA    M    49    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH    M    40    Pyramid Party of India

6    M.VENKATESH    M    55    Bharatiya Praja Paksha

7    H.R.SHIVAKUMAR    M    39    Lok Jan Shakti Party

8    KRISHNAMURTHY .T    M    70    Independent

9    K.S.CHANDRASHEKARA RAO (AZAD)    M    54    Independent

10    L.NAGARAJ    M    52    Independent

11    G.NARAYANAPPA    M    62    Independent

12    A.N.BACHEGOWDA    M    50    Independent

13    G.B.MUTHUKUMAR    M    62    Independent

14    M.MUNIVENKATAIAH    M    64    Independent

15    M.RAMESH    M    30    Independent

16    RAVI GOKRE    M    32    Independent

17    G.N. RAVI    M    45    Independent

18    K.VENKATAREDDY    M    36    Independent

19    B.SHIVARAJA    M    40    Independent

20    Y.A.SIDDALINGEGOWDA    M    42    Independent

S10    28    KA    KOLAR    23-Apr-09    1    G.CHANDRANNA    M    56    Janata Dal (Secular)

2    K.H.MUNIYAPPA    M    61    Indian National Congress

3    N.MUNISWAMY    M    57    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    LAKSHMI SHANMUGAM    F    56    Nationalist Congress Party

5    D.S.VEERAIAH    M    60    Bharatiya Janata Party

6    K.R.DEVARAJA    M    51    Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

7    B.M.KRISHNAPPA    M    59    Independent

8    M.R.GANTAPPA    M    46    Independent

9    P.V.CHANGALARAYAPPA    M    38    Independent

10    P.CHANDRAPPA    M    42    Independent

11    V.JAYARAMA    M    59    Independent

12    JAYARAMAPPA    M    45    Independent

13    NAGARATHNA M.    F    47    Independent

14    M.NAGARAJA    M    35    Independent

15    NARAYANASWAMY    M    49    Independent

16    K.NARAYANASWAMY    M    37    Independent

17    C.K.MUNIYAPPA    M    43    Independent

18    M.RAVI KUMAR    M    36    Independent

19    M.VENKATASWAMY    M    55    Independent

20    K.VENKATESH    M    40    Independent

21    SRINIVASA T.O.    M    37    Independent

22    SRINIVASA P.    M    42    Independent

S12    8    MP    KHAJURAHO    23-Apr-09    1    JAYAWANT SINGH    M    49    Samajwadi Party

2    JEETENDRA SINGH    M    50    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    RAJA PATERYA    M    49    Indian National Congress

4    SEWA LAL PATEL    M    49    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    M. SHAKIL    M    38    Gondwana Mukti Sena

6    SAROJ BACHCHAN NAYAK    F    56    Janata Dal (United)

7    SURYA BHAN SINGH ‘YADAV GURUJI’    M    75    All India Forward Bloc

8    AKEEL KHAN    M    43    Independent

9    AKANCHHA JAIN    F    34    Independent

10    KRISHNA SHARAN SINGH (RAJA BHAIYA)    M    36    Independent

11    NARENDRA KUMAR    M    54    Independent

12    RAJENDRA AHIRWAR    M    43    Independent

13    RAM NATH LODHI    M    41    Independent

14    SHABNAM (MAUSI)    F    48    Independent

15    SHUKL SITARAM    M    48    Independent

S12    9    MP    SATNA    23-Apr-09    1    GANESH SINGH    M    46    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    PT. RAJARAM TRIPATHI    M    56    Samajwadi Party

3    SUKHLAL KUSHWAHA    M    46    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    SUDHIR SINGH TOMAR    M    41    Indian National Congress

5    ONKAR SINGH    M    56    Akhil Bharatiya Hind Kranti Party

6    GIRJA SINGH PATEL    M    49    Apna Dal

7    CHHOTELAL SINGH GOND    M    65    Gondwana Mukti Sena

8    PRAMILA    F    43    Republican Party of India (A)

9    B BALLABH CHARYA    M    38    Advait Ishwasyam Congress

10    RAJESH SINGH BAGHEL    M    41    Gondvana Gantantra Party

11    SHOBHNATH SEN    M    29    Lok Jan Shakti Party

12    SUNDERLAL CHAUDHARI    M    64    Indian Justice Party

13    ASHOK KUMAR KUSHWAHA    M    33    Independent

14    ASHOK KUSHWAHA    M    28    Independent

15    CHHOTELAL    M    59    Independent

16    BHAIYALAL URMALIYA    M    62    Independent

17    MANISH KUMAR JAIN    M    31    Independent

18    MUNNI KRANTI    F    44    Independent

19    RAMVISHWAS BASORE    M    38    Independent

20    RAM SAJIVAN    M    46    Independent

21    RAMAYAN CHAUDHARI    M    39    Independent

S12    10    MP    REWA    23-Apr-09    1    CHANDRA MANI TRIPATHI    M    62    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    DEORAJ SINGH PATEL    M    36    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    PUSHPRAJ SINGH    M    48    Samajwadi Party

4    SUNDER LAL TIWARI    M    51    Indian National Congress

5    BADRI PRASAD KUSHWAHA    M    47    Apna Dal

6    RAMKISHAN NIRAT (SAKET)    M    32    Republican Party of India (A)

7    RAMAYAN PRASAD PATEL    M    42    Yuva Vikas Party

8    VIMALA SONDHIA    F    53    Lok Jan Shakti Party

9    SALMA    F    33    All India Forward Bloc

10    MD. AKEEL KHAN (BACHCHA BHAI)    M    34    Independent

11    JAIKARAN SAKET    M    48    Independent

12    BRAHMDUTTMISHRA ALIAS CHHOTE MURAITHA    M    46    Independent

13    SUKHENDRA PRATAP    M    44    Independent

14    SUNDAR LAL    M    37    Independent

15    HIRALAL VISHWAKARMA    M    56    Independent

S12    11    MP    SIDHI    23-Apr-09    1    ASHOK KUMAR SHAH    M    34    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    INDRAJEET KUMAR    M    61    Indian National Congress

3    GOVIND PRASAD MISHRA    M    60    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    MANIK SINGH    M    43    Samajwadi Party

5    LOLAR SINGH URETI    M    29    Gondwana Mukti Sena

6    VEENA SINGH NETI    F    34    Gondvana Gantantra Party

7    BABOOLAL JAISWAL    M    39    Independent

8    MADAN MOHAN JAISWAL (ADVOCATE)    M    36    Independent

9    MAHENDRA BHAIYA (DIKSHIT)    M    42    Independent

10    RAMAKANT PANDEY MALAIHNA    M    63    Independent

11    VEENA SINGH (VEENA DIDI)    F    56    Independent

S12    12    MP    SHAHDOL    23-Apr-09    1    CHANDRA PRATAP SINGH (BABA SAHAB)    M    51    Samajwadi Party

2    NARENDRA SINGH MARAVI    M    29    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    MANOHAR SINGH MARAVI    M    46    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    RAJESH NANDINI SINGH    F    52    Indian National Congress

5    SADAN SINGH BHARIA    M    39    Communist Party of India

6    KRISHN PAL SINGH PAVEL    M    29    Lok Jan Shakti Party

7    GANPAT GOND    M    38    Gondwana Mukti Sena

8    RAM RATAN SINGH PAVLE    M    28    Gondvana Gantantra Party

S12    13    MP    JABALPUR    23-Apr-09    1    AZIZ QURESHI    M    64    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA    M    40    Samajwadi Party

3    RAKESH SINGH    M    48    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    ADVOCATE RAMESHWAR NEEKHRA    M    61    Indian National Congress

5    MEERCHAND PATEL (KACHHVAHA)    M    63    Republican Party of India

6    RAVI MAHOBIA (KUNDAM)    M    29    Gondvana Gantantra Party

7    RAJKUMARI SINGH    F    40    Lok Jan Shakti Party

8    HARI SINGH MARAVI    M    36    Gondwana Mukti Sena

9    DR. MUKESH MEHROTRA    M    57    Independent

10    RAKESH SONKAR (PRAMUKH DHAI AKSHAR)    M    39    Independent

11    SUNIL PATEL    M    38    Independent

S12    14    MP    MANDLA    23-Apr-09    1    JALSO DHURWEY    F    25    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    FAGGAN SINGH KULASTE    M    49    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    BASORI SINGH MASRAM    M    59    Indian National Congress

4    UDAL SINGH DHURWEY    M    35    Loktanrik Sarkar Party

5    JHANK SINGH KUSHRE    M    37    Gondvana Gantantra Party

6    PREM SINGH MARAVI    M    35    Gondwana Mukti Sena

7    BHAGAT SINGH VARKEDE    M    45    Lok Jan Shakti Party

8    MANESHWARI NAIK    F    65    Republican Party of India (A)

9    SUNITA NETI    F    33    Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

10    CHANDRA SHEKHAR DHURWEY    M    46    Independent

11    CHAMBAL SING MARAWEE    M    62    Independent

12    DEV SINGH BHALAVI    M    25    Independent

13    SHIVCHARAN UIKEY    M    26    Independent

14    SAHDEO PRASAD MARAVI    M    43    Independent

S12    15    MP    BALAGHAT    23-Apr-09    1    AJAB LAL    M    35    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    KISHOR SAMRITE    M    42    Samajwadi Party

3    KANKAR MUNJARE    M    52    Rashtriya Janata Dal

4    K. D. DESHMUKH    M    60    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    VISHVESHWAR BHAGAT    M    57    Indian National Congress

6    KALPANA GOPAL WASNIK    F    38    Republican Party of India (A)

7    DARBU SINGH UIKEY    M    37    Gondwana Mukti Sena

8    BHAIYA BALKRISHNA    M    53    Gondvana Gantantra Party

9    ADVOCATE AZHAR UL ALIM    M    58    Independent

10    ANJU ASHOK UIKEY    F    34    Independent

11    GOVARDHAN PATLE URF HITLAR    M    75    Independent

12    JITENDRA MESHRAM    M    37    Independent

13    DHANESHWAR LILHARE    M    40    Independent

14    NYAZMIR KHAN    M    32    Independent

15    POORANLAL LODHI    M    37    Independent

16    MANSINGH BISEN    M    59    Independent

17    SANDEEP SANTRAM    M    31    Independent

18    SHRIRAM THAKUR    M    58    Independent

S12    16    MP    CHHINDWARA    23-Apr-09    1    KAMAL NATH    M    62    Indian National Congress

2    MAROT RAO KHAVASE    M    59    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    RAO SAHEB SHINDE    M    46    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    JOGILAL IRPACHI    M    48    Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

5    PARDHESHI HARTAPSAH TIRKAM    M    40    Gondwana Mukti Sena

6    BALVEER SINGH YADAV    M    30    Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

7    RAMKISHAN PAL    M    62    Republican Party of India (A)

8    SATAP SHA UIKEY    M    35    Gondvana Gantantra Party

9    ABDUL SHAMAD KHAN    M    45    Independent

10    AMRITLAL PATHAK RAGHUVAR    M    70    Independent

11    ASHARAM DEHARIYA    M    33    Independent

12    KAMALNATH (MAYAWADI-PARASIA)    M    31    Independent

13    GANARAM UIKEY    M    53    Independent

14    AZAD CHANDRASHEKHER PANDOLE SAMAJ SEVAK    M    42    Independent

15    JAGDISH BAIS    M    35    Independent

16    TULSIRAM SURYAWANSHI    M    62    Independent

17    DUARAM UIKEY    M    40    Independent

18    DHANPAL BHALAVI    M    35    Independent

19    DHANRAJ JAMBHATKAR    M    37    Independent

20    NARESH KUMAR YUVNATI    M    33    Independent

21    NIKHILESH DHURVEY    M    30    Independent

22    PITRAM UIKEY    M    48    Independent

23    PRAVINDRA NAURATI    M    37    Independent

24    MANMOHAN SHAH BATTI    M    46    Independent

25    R.K. MARKAM    M    28    Independent

26    SHOAIB KHAN    M    44    Independent

27    SUKMAN INVATI    M    42    Independent

28    SUBHASH SHUKLA    M    40    Independent

S12    17    MP    HOSHANGABAD    23-Apr-09    1    UDAY PRATAP SINGH    M    44    Indian National Congress

2    ADV.B.M.KAUSHIK    M    35    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    HAJAEE SYID MUEEN UDDIN    M    47    Samajwadi Party

4    RAMPAL SINGH    M    53    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    DINESH KUMAR AHIRWAR    M    42    Independent

6    BHARAT KUMAR CHOUREY    M    29    Independent

7    MOHAMMD ABDULLA    M    54    Independent

8    RAKHI GUPTA    F    31    Independent

9    RAMPAL    M    62    Independent

10    SUDAMA PRASAD    M    55    Independent

S12    18    MP    VIDISHA    23-Apr-09    1    DR.PREMSHANKAR SHARMA    M    44    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    CHOUDHARY MUNABBAR SALIM    M    50    Samajwadi Party

3    SUSHMA SWARAJ    F    57    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    BHAI MUNSHILAL SILAWAT    M    25    Republican Party of India (A)

5    RAMGOPAL MALVIYA    M    35    Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

6    HARBHAJAN JANGRE    M    33    Lok Jan Shakti Party

7    GANESHRAM LODHI    M    44    Independent

8    RAJESHWAR SINGH YADAV (RAO)    M    39    Independent

S12    19    MP    BHOPAL    23-Apr-09    1    ER. ASHOK NARAYAN SINGH    M    53    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    KAILASH JOSHI    M    79    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    MHOD. MUNAWAR KHAN KAUSAR    M    44    Samajwadi Party

4    SURENDRA SINGH THAKUR    M    55    Indian National Congress

5    ASHOK PAWAR    M    47    Prajatantrik Samadhan Party

6    AHIRWAR LAKHANLAL PURVI    M    42    Republican Party of India (A)

7    KARAN KUMAR KAROSIA URF KARAN JEEJA    M    41    Gondvana Gantantra Party

8    RADHESHYAM KULASTE    M    38    Gondwana Mukti Sena

9    RAMDAS GHOSLE    M    54    Republican Party of India (Democratic )

10    SANJEEV SINGHAL    M    42    Savarn Samaj Party

11    ANIL SINGH    M    30    Independent

12    AMAR SINGH    M    72    Independent

13    KAPIL DUBEY    M    37    Independent

14    D. C. GUJARKAR    M    52    Independent

15    DARSHAN SINGH RATHORE    M    53    Independent

16    BRAJENDRA CHATURVEDI URF GAPPU CHATURVEDI    M    35    Independent

17    DR. MAHESH YADAV ‘AMAN GANDHI’    M    40    Independent

18    MUKESH SEN    M    32    Independent

19    MEHDI SIR    M    30    Independent

20    RAJESH KUMAR YADAV    M    42    Independent

21    RAM SAHAY YATRI (SHRIVASTAVA) URF RASHTRAVADI YATRI    M    79    Independent

22    SHAHNAWAZ    M    59    Independent

23    SHIV NARAYAN SINGH BAGWARE    M    60    Independent

S12    29    MP    BETUL    23-Apr-09    1    OJHARAM EVANE    M    54    Indian National Congress

2    JYOTI DHURVE    F    43    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    RAMA KAKODIA    M    50    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    DR. SUKHDEV SINGH CHOUHAN    M    42    Samajwadi Party

5    KALLUSINGH UIKEY    M    59    Gondwana Mukti Sena

6    KADMU SINGH KUMARE (K.S.KUMARE)    M    59    Gondvana Gantantra Party

7    GULABRAV    M    53    Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

8    MANGAL SINGH LOKHANDE    M    51    Samajwadi Jan Parishad

9    SUSHILKUMAR ALIS BALUBHAIYYA    M    39    Republican Party of India (A)

10    IMRATLAL MARKAM    M    58    Independent

11    KAMAL SING    M    45    Independent

12    KADAKSHING VADIVA    M    27    Independent

13    KRISHNA GOPAL PARTE    M    35    Independent

14    MOTIRAM MAVASE    M    48    Independent

15    ADHIVAKTA SHANKAR PENDAM    M    66    Independent

16    SUNIL KUMAR KAWADE    M    27    Independent

S13    1    MH    NANDURBAR    23-Apr-09    1    GAVIT MANIKRAO HODLYA    M    75    Indian National Congress

2    NATAWADKAR SUHAS JYANT    M    48    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    PADVI BABITA KARMSINGH    F    36    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    KOKANI MANJULABAI SAKHARAM    F    59    Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

5    GAVIT SHARAD KRUSHNRAO    M    46    Samajwadi Party

6    ABHIJIT AATYA VASAVE    M    30    Independent

7    KOLI RAJU RAMDAS    M    34    Independent

S13    2    MH    DHULE    23-Apr-09    1    AMARISHBHAI RASIKLAL PATEL    M    56    Indian National Congress

2    RIZWAN MO.AKBAR    M    34    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    SONAWANE PRATAP NARAYANRAO    M    60    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    ANIL ANNA GOTE    M    61    Loksangram

5    ANSARI MOHD. ISMAIL MOHD. IBRAHIM    M    37    Bharatiya Minorities Suraksha Mahasangh

6    ARIF AHMED SHAIKH JAFHAR    M    99    Navbharat Nirman Party

7    KAVAYATRI-SONKANYA THAKUR RAJANI BAGWAN    F    49    Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

8    NIHAL AHMED MOLVI. MOHAMMED USMAN    M    81    Janata Dal (Secular)

9    MD. ISMAIL JUMMAN    M    49    Independent

10    KISHOR PITAMBAR AHIRE    M    28    Independent

11    GAZI ATEZAD AHMED MUBEEN AHMED KHAN    M    57    Independent

12    GAIKWAD PATIL BHUSHAN BAJIRAO    M    28    Independent

13    DADASO. PANDITRAO PATIL KOKALEKAR    M    55    Independent

14    SHEVALE PATIL SANDEEP JIBHAU    M    31    Independent

15    SONAWANE PANDIT UTTAMRAO    M    42    Independent

S13    3    MH    JALGAON    23-Apr-09    1    A.T. NANA PATIL    M    47    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    ADV. MATIN AHMED    M    38    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    ADV. VASANTRAO JIVANRAO MORE    M    63    Nationalist Congress Party

4    ATMARAM SURSING JADHAV (ENGG.)    M    33    Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena

5    JADHAV NATTHU SHANKAR    M    56    Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

6    JANGALU DEVRAM SHIRSATH    M    65    Hindustan Janta Party

7    NANNAWARE CHAITANYA PANDIT    M    33    Prabuddha Republican Party

8    LAXMAN SHIVAJI SHIRSATH (PATIL)    M    42    Krantisena Maharashtra

9    ANIL PITAMBAR WAGH (SIR)    M    38    Independent

10    KANTILAL CHHAGAN NAIK (BANJARA)    M    39    Independent

11    WAGH SUDHAKAR ATMARAM    M    26    Independent

12    SHALIGRAM SHIVRAM MAHAJAN (DEORE)    M    49    Independent

13    SALIMODDIN ISAMODDIN SHE.(MISTARI)    M    56    Independent

S13    4    MH    RAVER    23-Apr-09    1    PATIL SURESH CHINDHU    M    48    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    ADV. RAVINDRA PRALHADRAO PATIL    M    54    Nationalist Congress Party

3    HARIBHAU MADHAV JAWALE    M    55    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    TELI SHAIKH ISMAIL HAJI HASAN    M    57    Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

5    BAPU SAHEBRAO SONAWANE    M    45    Prabuddha Republican Party

6    MARATHE BHIMRAO PARBAT    M    51    Krantisena Maharashtra

7    SHIVAVEER DNYANESHWAR VITTHAL AMALE URPH AMALE SARKAR    M    26    Shivrajya Party

8    IQBAL ALAUDDIN TADVI    M    41    Independent

9    UTTAM KASHIRAM INGALE    M    36    Independent

10    KOLI SANTOSH GOKUL    M    25    Independent

11    FIRKE SURESH KACHARU EX ACP (CRPF)    M    58    Independent

12    MAKBUL FARID SK.    M    36    Independent

13    MOHD. MUNAWWAR MOHD. HANIF    M    45    Independent

14    MORE HIRAMAN BHONAJI    M    41    Independent

15    D.D. WANI (PHOTOGRAPHER) (DYNESHWAR DIWAKAR WANI)    M    43    Independent

16    VIVEK SHARAD PATIL    M    41    Independent

17    SHAIKH RAMJAN SHAIKH KARIM    M    40    Independent

18    SUJATA IBRAHIM TADAVI    F    45    Independent

19    SANJAY PRALADH KANDELKAR    M    34    Independent

S13    18    MH    JALNA    23-Apr-09    1    DR. KALE KALYAN VAIJINATHRAO    M    46    Indian National Congress

2    DANVE RAOSAHEB DADARAO    M    56    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    RATHOD RAJPALSINH GABRUSINH    M    35    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    AAPPASAHEB RADHAKISAN KUDHEKAR    M    29    Krantisena Maharashtra

5    KISAN BALVANTA BORDE    M    61    Prabuddha Republican Party

6    KHARAT ASHOK RAMRAO    M    51    Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

7    TAWAR KAILAS BHAUSAHEB    M    45    Swatantra Bharat Paksha

8    DR. DILAWAR MIRZA BAIG    M    29    Indian Union Muslim League

9    BHOJNE BABASAHEB SANGAM    M    37    Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

10    MISAL TUKARAM BABURAOJI    M    48    Samajwadi Party

11    RATNAPARKHE ARCHANA SUDHAKAR    F    31    Republician Party of India Ektawadi

12    SUBHASH FAKIRA SALVE    M    43    Ambedkar National Congress

13    SAYYAD MAKSUD NOOR    M    42    Lok Jan Shakti Party

14    KOLTE MANOJ NEMINATH    M    26    Independent

15    KHANDU HARISHCHANDRA LAGHANE    M    30    Independent

16    NADE DNYANESHWAR DAGDU    M    41    Independent

17    BABASAHEB PATIL SHINDE    M    53    Independent

18    SONWANE ASHOK VITTHAL    M    45    Independent

19    S. HUSAIN AHEMAD    M    37    Independent

S13    19    MH    AURANGABAD    23-Apr-09    1    UTTAMSINGH RAJDHARSINGH PAWAR    M    58    Indian National Congress

2    CHANDRAKANT KHAIRE    M    57    Shivsena

3    SAYYED SALIM SAYYED YUSUF    M    56    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    JAHAGIRDAR MOHMAD AYUB GULAM    M    55    Samajwadi Party

5    JYOTI RAMCHANDRA UPADHAYAY    F    35    Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

6    PANDURANG WAMANRAO NARWADE    M    39    Prabuddha Republican Party

7    BHIMSEN RAMBHAU KAMBLE    M    44    Republician Party of India Ektawadi

8    MANIK RAMU SHINDE    M    34    Krantisena Maharashtra

9    SHAIKH HARUN MALIK SAHEB    M    50    Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

10    UTTAM MANIK KIRTIKAR    M    30    Independent

11    EJAZ KHAN BISMILLAH KHAN    M    33    Independent

12    KAZI MUSHIRODDIN TAJODDIN    M    63    Independent

13    KRISHNA DEVIDAS JADHAV    M    25    Independent

14    JADHAV TOTARAM GANPAT    M    51    Independent

15    JADHAV VISHNU SURYABHAN    M    50    Independent

16    JADHAV SUBHASH RUPCHAND    M    33    Independent

17    BANKAR MILIND RANUJI    M    38    Independent

18    SHANTIGIRIJI MOUNGIRIJI MAHARAJ    M    50    Independent

19    SHAIKH RAFIQ SHAIKH RAZZAK    M    30    Independent

20    SHAIKH SALIM PATEL WAHEGAONKAR    M    38    Independent

21    SAYYED RAUF SAYYED ZAMIR    M    54    Independent

22    SUBHASH KISANRAO PATIL (JADHAV)    M    47    Independent

S13    20    MH    DINDORI    23-Apr-09    1    GAVIT JEEVA PANDU    M    60    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

2    GANGURDE DIPAK SHANKAR    M    36    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    CHAVAN HARISHCHANDRA DEORAM    M    57    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    ZIRWAL NARHARI SITARAM    M    50    Nationalist Congress Party

5    PAWAR SAMPAT WAMAN    M    30    Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

6    GANGURDE BALU KISAN    M    37    Independent

7    BHIKA HARISING BARDE    M    75    Independent

8    VIJAY NAMDEO PAWAR    M    45    Independent

9    SHANKAR DEORAM GANGUDE    M    51    Independent

S13    21    MH    NASHIK    23-Apr-09    1    GAIKWAD DATTA NAMDEO    M    47    Shivsena

2    SAMEER BHUJBAL    M    35    Nationalist Congress Party

3    SHRIMAHANT SUDHIRDAS MAHARAJ    M    43    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    KAILAS MADHUKAR CHAVAN    M    28    Indian Justice Party

5    GODSE HEMANT TUKARAM    M    38    Maharashtra Navnirman sena

6    JADHAV NAMDEO BHIKAJI    M    57    Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

7    RAYATE VIJAY SAKHARAM ( RAYATE SIR)    M    52    Hindustan Janta Party

8    AD. GULVE RAMNATH SANTUJI    M    42    Independent

9    DATTU GONYA GAIKWAD    M    50    Independent

10    PRAVINCHANDRA DATTARAM DETHE    M    42    Independent

11    BHARAT HIRMAN PARDESHI    M    37    Independent

12    RAJENDRA SAMPATRAO KADU    M    35    Independent

S13    32    MH    RAIGAD    23-Apr-09    1    ANANT GEETE    M    58    Shivsena

2    BARRISTER A.R. ANTULAY    M    80    Indian National Congress

3    MOHITE KIRAN BABURAO    M    34    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    EKANATH ARJUN PATIL    M    48    Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

5    ADV. PRAVIN MADHUKAR THAKUR    M    39    Independent

6    DR. SIDDHARTH PATIL    M    54    Independent

7    SUNIL BHASKAR NAIK    M    51    Independent

S13    33    MH    MAVAL    23-Apr-09    1    PANSARE AZAM FAKEERBHAI    M    48    Nationalist Congress Party

2    BABAR GAJANAN DHARMSHI    M    66    Shivsena

3    MISHRA UMAKANT RAMESHWAR    M    36    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    AYU. DEEPALI NIVRUTTI CHAVAN    F    35    Prabuddha Republican Party

5    PRADIP PANDURANG KOCHAREKAR    M    49    Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

6    ADV.SHIVSHANKAR DATTATRAY SHINDE    M    31    Krantisena Maharashtra

7    ISHWAR DATTATRAY JADHAV    M    46    Independent

8    JAGANNATH PANDURANG KHARGE    M    38    Independent

9    DOLE BHIMRAJ NIVRUTTI    M    38    Independent

10    ADVOCATE TUKARAM WAMANRAO BANSODE    M    64    Independent

11    TANTARPALE GOPAL YASHWANTRAO    M    43    Independent

12    ADVOCATE PRAMOD MAHADEV GORE    M    56    Independent

13    BHAPKAR MARUTI SAHEBRAO    M    38    Independent

14    MAHENDRA PRABHAKAR TIWARI    M    41    Independent

15    BRO. MANUAL DESOZA    M    45    Independent

16    YASHWANT NARAYAN DESAI    M    42    Independent

17    SHAKEEL RAJBHAI SHAIKH    M    38    Independent

18    HARIBHAU DADAJI SHINDE    M    70    Independent

S13    34    MH    PUNE    23-Apr-09    1    ANIL SHIROLE    M    59    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    KALMADI SURESH    M    64    Indian National Congress

3    D S K ALIAS D.S.KULKARNI    M    58    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    ARUN BHATIA    M    66    Peoples Guardian

5    GULAB TATYA WAGHMODE    M    47    Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

6    BAGBAN JAVED KASIM    M    26    Indian Union Muslim League

7    VIKRAMADITYA OMPRAKASH DHIMAN    M    40    Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

8    VINOD ANAND SINH    M    55    Proutist Sarva Samaj Party

9    SHIROLE RANJEET SHRIKANT    M    32    Maharashtra Navnirman sena

10    SAVITA HAJARE    F    46    Pyramid Party of India

11    SANGHARSH ARUN APTE    M    28    Prabuddha Republican Party

12    AJAY VASANT PAITHANKAR    M    49    Independent

13    ADAGALE BHAUSAHEB RAMCHANDRA    M    48    Independent

14    ASHOK GANPAT PALKHE ALIAS SUTAR    M    45    Independent

15    KAMTAM ISWAR SAMBHAYYA    M    67    Independent

16    KULKARNI KAUSTUBH SHASHIKANT    M    26    Independent

17    KHAN AMANULLA MOHMOD AL    M    55    Independent

18    KHAN NISSAR TAJ AHMAD    M    44    Independent

19    P. K. CHAVAN    M    80    Independent

20    CHOUDHARI SUNIL GULABRAO    M    41    Independent

21    CHOURE VILAS CHINTAMAN    M    45    Independent

22    TATYA ALIAS NARAYAN SHANKAR WAMBHIRE    M    51    Independent

23    TAMBOLI SHABBIR SAJJANBHAI    M    52    Independent

24    DATTATRAYA GANESH TALGERI    M    61    Independent

25    BAGADE SACHIN MARUTI    M    29    Independent

26    BALU ALIAS ANIL SHIROLE    M    28    Independent

27    BHARAT MANOHAR GAVALI    M    65    Independent

28    BHAGWAT RAGHUNATH KAMBLE    M    35    Independent

29    RAJENDRA BHAGAT ALIAS JITU BHAI    M    29    Independent

30    VIKRAM NARENDRA BOKE    M    53    Independent

31    SHINDE RAJENDRA BABURAO    M    44    Independent

32    SHAIKH ALTAF KARIM    M    48    Independent

33    SHRIKANT MADHUSUDAN JAGTAP    M    33    Independent

34    SARDESAI KISHORKUMAR RAGHUNATH    M    42    Independent

35    ADV.SUBHASH NARHAR GODSE    M    59    Independent

36    SANTOSH ALIAS SOMNATH KALU PAWAR    M    38    Independent

S13    35    MH    BARAMATI    23-Apr-09    1    KUDALEPATIL VIVEK ANANT    M    40    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    KANTA JAYSING NALAWADE    F    56    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    SUPRIYA SULE    F    39    Nationalist Congress Party

4    MAYAWATI AMAR CHITRE    F    31    Bharatiya Minorities Suraksha Mahasangh

5    SHELAR SANGEETA PANDURANG    F    33    Krantisena Maharashtra

6    SACHIN VITTHAL AHIRE    M    29    Prabuddha Republican Party

7    SAMPAT MARUTI TAKALE    M    54    Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

8    GHORPADE SAVEETA ASHOK    F    29    Independent

9    TATYA ALIAS NARAYAN SHANKAR WAMBHIRE    M    51    Independent

10    TANTARPALE GOPAL YESHWANTRAO    M    43    Independent

11    DEEPAK SHANKAR BHAPKAR    M    26    Independent

12    BHIMA ANNA KADALE    M    31    Independent

13    MRUNALEENI JAYRAJ KAKADE    F    34    Independent

14    YOGESH SONABA RANDHEER    M    39    Independent

15    SHIVAJI JAYSING KOKARE    M    58    Independent

16    SURESH BABURAO VEER    M    62    Independent

17    SANGITA SHRIMAN BHUMKAR    F    30    Independent

S13    36    MH    SHIRUR    23-Apr-09    1    ADHALRAO SHIVAJI DATTATRAY    M    52    Shivsena

2    ZAGADE YASHWANT SITARAM    M    35    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    VILAS VITHOBA LANDE    M    47    Nationalist Congress Party

4    PALLAVI MOHAN HARSHE    F    27    Prabuddha Republican Party

5    SHELAR DNYANOBA SHRIPATI    M    57    Republican Presidium Party of India

6    SURESH MULCHAND KANKARIA (MAMA)    M    57    Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

7    ABHANG KONDIBHAU BHIMAJI    M    48    Independent

8    KARANDE CHANGDEO NAMDEO    M    43    Independent

9    KALURAM RAGHUNATH TAPKIR    M    52    Independent

10    RAM DHARMA DAMBALE    M    37    Independent

11    LANDE VILAS MHATARBA    M    37    Independent

S13    37    MH    AHMADNAGAR    23-Apr-09    1    KARDILE SHIVAJI BHANUDAS    M    50    Nationalist Congress Party

2    KARBHARI WAMAN SHIRSAT ALIAS K.V. SHIRSAT    M    65    Communist Party of India

3    GADAKH TUKARAM GANGADHAR    M    55    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    GANDHI DILIPKUMAR MANSUKHLAL    M    59    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    KAZI SAJID MUJIR    M    41    Republician Party of India Ektawadi

6    HAKE BHANUDAS KISAN    M    55    Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

7    HOLE BHANUDAS NAMDEO    M    48    Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

8    ARUN KAHAR    M    45    Independent

9    AVINASH MALHARRAO GHODAKE    M    40    Independent

10    KHAIRE ARJUN DEORAO    M    39    Independent

11    GAIKWAD BALASAHEB RAMCHANDRA    M    35    Independent

12    NAUSHAD ANSAR SHAIKH    F    39    Independent

13    PROF. MAHENDRA DADA SHINDE    M    29    Independent

14    RAUT EKNATH BABASAHEB    M    56    Independent

15    RAJIV APPASAHEB RAJALE    M    39    Independent

S13    38    MH    SHIRDI    23-Apr-09    1    KACHARU NAGU WAGHMARE    M    60    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    WAKCHOURE BHAUSAHEB RAJARAM    M    59    Shivsena

3    ATHAWALE RAMDAS BANDU    M    52    Republican Party of India

4    DHOTRE SUCHIT CHINTAMANI    M    25    Krantisena Maharashtra

5    SATISH BALASAHEB PALGHADMAL    M    26    Prabuddha Republican Party

6    ADHAGALE RAJENDRA NAMDEV    M    39    Independent

7    KAMBALE RAMESH ANKUSH    M    32    Independent

8    GAIKWAD APPASAHEB GANGADHAR    M    64    Independent

9    BAGUL BALU DASHARATH    M    34    Independent

10    MEDHE PRAFULLAKUMAR MURLIDHAR    M    46    Independent

11    RAKSHE ANNASAHEB EKNATH    M    43    Independent

12    RUPWATE PREMANAND DAMODHAR    M    65    Independent

13    LODHE SHARAD LAXAMAN    M    42    Independent

14    WAGH GANGADHAR RADHAJI    M    60    Independent

15    VAIRAGHAR SUDHIR NATHA    M    38    Independent

16    SABALE ANIL DAMODHAR    M    40    Independent

17    SANDIP BHASKAR GOLAP    M    29    Independent

S13    39    MH    BEED    23-Apr-09    1    KOKATE RAMESH BABURAO (ADASKAR)    M    42    Nationalist Congress Party

2    MASKE MACHHINDRA BABURAO    M    54    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    MUNDE GOPINATHRAO PANDURANG    M    59    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    KHALGE KACHRU SANTRAMJI    M    48    Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

5    GURAV KALYAN BHANUDAS    M    62    Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

6    TATE ASHOK SANTRAM    M    50    Ambedkarist Republican Party

7    NIKALJE SHEELATAI MAHENDRA    F    34    Prabuddha Republican Party

8    PRAMOD ALIAS PARMESHWAR SAKHARAM MOTE    M    32    Krantisena Maharashtra

9    BABURAO NARAYANRAO KAGADE    M    63    Ambedkar National Congress

10    DR. SHIVAJIRAO KISANRAO SHENDGE    M    39    Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

11    KAMAL KONDIRAM NIMBALKAR    F    39    Independent

12    KAMBLE DEEPAK DYANOBA    M    32    Independent

13    KHAN SIKANDAR KHAN HUSSAIN KHAN    M    58    Independent

14    GUJAR KHAN MIRZA KHAN    M    28    Independent

15    ADV.NATKAR RAMRAO SHESHRAO    M    61    Independent

16    PATHAN GAFARKHAN JABBARKHAN    M    42    Independent

17    MAHAMMAD AKARAM MAHAMMAD SALIMUDDIN BAGWAN    M    34    Independent

18    RAMESH VISHVANATH KOKATE    M    32    Independent

19    SAYYED MINHAJ ALI WAJED ALI (PENDKHJUR WALE)    M    34    Independent

20    SAYYED SALIM FATTU    M    47    Independent

21    SARDAR KHAN SULTANABABA    M    26    Independent

S13    40    MH    OSMANABAD    23-Apr-09    1    GAIKWAD RAVINDRA VISHWANATH    M    49    Shivsena

2    DIVAKAR YASHWANT NAKADE    M    35    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    PATIL PADAMSINHA BAJIRAO    M    68    Nationalist Congress Party

4    JAGTAP BHAGWAN DADARAO    M    70    Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

5    TARKASE DHANANJAY MURLIDHAR    M    34    Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha

6    TAWADE PRAKASH TANAJIRAO    M    28    Krantisena Maharashtra

7    BANSODE GUNDERAO SHIVRAM    M    73    Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

8    BABA FAIJODDIN SHAIKH    M    28    Nelopa(United)

9    BHOSLE REVAN VISHWANATH    M    45    Janata Dal (Secular)

10    MUJAWAR SHAHABUDDIN NABIRASUL    M    37    Prabuddha Republican Party

11    RAJENDRA RANDITRAO HIPPERGEKAR    M    38    Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena

12    ANGARSHA SALIM BABULAL    M    62    Independent

13    GAIKWAD UMAJI PANDURANG    M    39    Independent

14    CHAVAN BABU VITHOBA    M    40    Independent

15    CHANDANE PINTU PANDURANG    M    35    Independent

16    DADASAHEB SHANKARRAO JETITHOR    M    50    Independent

17    NITURE ARUN BHAURAO    M    38    Independent

18    PATEL HASHAM ISMAIL    M    55    Independent

19    PAWAR HARIDAS MANIKRAO    M    35    Independent

20    PATIL MAHADEO DNYANDEO    M    50    Independent

21    BALAJI BAPURAO TUPSUNDARE    M    37    Independent

22    ADV. BHAUSAHEB ANIL BELURE (BEMBLIKAR)    M    29    Independent

23    MUNDHE PATRIL PADAMSINHA VIJAYSINHA    M    29    Independent

24    YEVATE-PATIL SHRIMANT    M    55    Independent

25    SANDIPAN RAMA ZOMBADE    M    41    Independent

S13    41    MH    LATUR    23-Apr-09    1    AAWALE JAYWANT GANGARAM    M    99    Indian National Congress

2    GAIKWAD SUNIL BALIRAM    M    99    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    ADV. BABASAHEB SADSHIVRAO GAIKWAD    M    99    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    ARAK ASHOK VIKRAM    M    99    Krantisena Maharashtra

5    V.K. ACHARYA    M    99    Prabuddha Republican Party

6    T.M. KAMBLE    M    99    Republican Party of India (Democratic )

7    GANNE TUKARAM RAMBHAU    M    99    Jan Surajya Shakti

8    BANSODE RAGHUNATH WAGHOJI    M    99    Peoples Republican Party

9    BABURAO SATYAWAN POTHHARE    M    99    Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

10    RAMKUMAR RAIWADIKAR    M    99    Samajwadi Jan Parishad

11    SHRIKANT RAMRAO JEDHE    M    99    Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

12    SUSANE ATUL GANGARAM    M    99    Ambedkarist Republican Party

13    SAHEBRAO HARIBHAU WAGHMARE    M    99    Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena

14    AAWCHARE VIJAYKUMAR BABRUWAN    M    99    Independent

15    KAMBLE BANSILAL RAMCHANDRA    M    99    Independent

16    NILANGAEKAR AVINASH MADHUKARRAO    M    99    Independent

17    MANE GAJANAN PANDURANG    M    99    Independent

18    SANJAY KABIRDAS GAIKWAD    M    99    Independent

S13    42    MH    SOLAPUR    23-Apr-09    1    GAIKWAD PRAMOD RAMCHANDRA    M    48    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    ADV. BANSODE SHARAD MARUTI    M    41    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    SHINDE SUSHILKUMAR SAMBHAJIRAO    M    67    Indian National Congress

4    ADV. KASABEKAR SHRIDHAR LIMBAJI    M    59    Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

5    RAJGURU NARAYAN YEDU    M    60    Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

6    LAXMIKANT CHANDRAKANT GAIKWAD    M    37    Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena

7    NARAYANKAR RAJENDRA BABURAO    M    44    Independent

8    NITINKUMAR RAMCHANDRA KAMBLE ALIAS NITIN BANPURKAR    M    37    Independent

9    BANSODE UTTAM BHIMSHA    M    50    Independent

10    BANSODE RAHUL DATTU    M    33    Independent

11    MILIND MAREPPA MULE    M    49    Independent

12    VIKRAM UTTAM KASABE    M    33    Independent

13    VIJAYKUMAR BHAGWANRAO UGHADE    M    38    Independent

S13    43    MH    MADHA    23-Apr-09    1    DESHMUKH SUBHASH SURESHCHANDRA    M    50    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    PAWAR SHARADCHANDRA GOVINDRAO    M    68    Nationalist Congress Party

3    RAHUL VITTHAL SARWADE    M    49    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    AYU GAIKWAD SATISH SUGRAV    M    28    Prabuddha Republican Party

5    CHAVAN SUBHASH VITTHAL    M    34    Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

6    MAHADEO JAGANNATH JANKAR    M    40    Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

7    RAMCHANDRA NARAYAN KACCHAVE    M    40    Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena

8    SASTE KAKASAHEB MAHADEO    M    48    Krantisena Maharashtra

9    SOU. NAGMANI KISAN JAKKAN    F    45    Independent

10    DR.M. D. PATIL    M    50    Independent

11    BANSODE BALVEER DAGADU    M    42    Independent

12    BHANUDAS BHAGAWAN DEVAKATE    M    70    Independent

13    DR. MAHADEO ABAJI POL    M    56    Independent

14    SURESH SHAMRAO GHADGE    M    36    Independent

15    DNYANESHWAR VITTHAL AMALE    M    26    Independent

S13    44    MH    SANGLI    23-Apr-09    1    PATEL M.JAVED M. YUSUF    M    38    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    PRATIK PRAKASHBAPU PATIL    M    35    Indian National Congress

3    ASHOK DNYANU MANE(BHAU)    M    37    Swatantra Bharat Paksha

4    MANOHAR BALKRISHNA KHEDKAR    M    58    Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

5    MAHADEV ANNA WAGHAMARE    M    65    Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

6    AJITRAO SHANKARRAO GHORPADE    M    56    Independent

7    ANSARI SHABBIR AHEMED    M    61    Independent

8    GANPATI TUKARAM KAMBLE ALIAS G.T. KAMBLE    M    70    Independent

9    PANDHARE DATTATRAYA PANDURANG    M    51    Independent

10    KAVTHEKAR PRAVIN BHAGWAN KAVTHEKAR ALIAS JIVA MAHALE    M    47    Independent

11    MULANI BALEKHAN USMAN    M    46    Independent

12    VAGARE MARUTI MURA    M    34    Independent

13    SHAMRAO PIRAJI KADAM    M    64    Independent

14    SIDDESHWAR SHIVAPPA BHOSALE    M    36    Independent

S13    45    MH    SATARA    23-Apr-09    1    CHAVAN PRASHANT VASANT    M    34    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    PURUSHOTTAM BAJIRAO JADHAV    M    45    Shivsena

3    BHONSLE SHRIMANT CHH. UDYANRAJE PRATAPSINH    M    43    Nationalist Congress Party

4    BHAUSAHEB GANGARAM WAGH    M    51    Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

5    ALNKRITA ABHIJIT AWADE-BICHUKALE    F    29    Independent

S13    46    MH    RATNAGIRI – SINDHUDURG    23-Apr-09    1    DR.NILESH NARAYAN RANE    M    28    Indian National Congress

2    PARULEKAR JAYENDRA SHRIPAD    M    43    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    SURESH PRABHAKAR PRABHU    M    55    Shivsena

4    AJAY ALIAS AABA DADA JADHAV    M    28    Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena

5    RAJESH PUSUSHOTTAM SURVE    M    41    Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

6    VILASRAO KHANVILKAR    M    54    Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha

7    SIRAJ ABDULLA KAUCHALI    M    60    Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

8    KHALAPE AKBAR MAHAMMAD    M    55    Independent

9    SURENDRA BORKAR    M    62    Independent

S13    47    MH    KOLHAPUR    23-Apr-09    1    KAMBLE SUHAS NIVRUTI    M    41    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    CHHATRPATI SAMBHAJIRAJE SHAHU    M    38    Nationalist Congress Party

3    DEVANE VIJAY SHAMRAO    M    50    Shivsena

4    KAMBLE MARUTI RAVELU    M    34    Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

5    CHOUGULE BHAI P.T.    M    64    Independent

6    DR. NEELAMBARI RAMESH MANDAPE    F    49    Independent

7    S.R. TATYA PATIL    M    70    Independent

8    BAJRANG KRISHNA PATIL    M    39    Independent

9    MAHAMMADGOUS GULAB NADAF    M    57    Independent

10    SADASHIVRAO MANDLIK DADOBA    M    74    Independent

S13    48    MH    HATKANANGLE    23-Apr-09    1    KANADE ANILKUMAR MAHADEV    M    37    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    MANE NIVEDITA SAMBHAJIRAO    F    45    Nationalist Congress Party

3    RAGHUNATH RAMCHANDRA PATIL    M    58    Shivsena

4    PATIL UDAY PANDHARINATH    M    39    Krantisena Maharashtra

5    BABURAO OMANNA KAMBLE    M    61    Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

6    MANE ARVIND BHIVA    M    43    Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

7    SHETTI RAJU ALIAS DEVAPPA ANNA    M    41    Swabhimani Paksha

8    ARUN ALIAS SHAM BAJARNAG BUCHADE    M    28    Independent

9    THORAT ANANDRAO TUKARAM    M    46    Independent

10    SURNIKE ANANDRAO VASANTRAO (FOUJI BAPU)    M    48    Independent

S18    4    OR    KEONJHAR    23-Apr-09    1    ANANTA NAYAK    M    39    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    DHANURJAYA SIDU    M    43    Indian National Congress

3    YASHBANT NARAYAN SINGH LAGURI    M    38    Biju Janata Dal

4    LACHHAMAN MAJHI    M    42    Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

5    DR SUDARSHAN LOHAR    M    59    Bahujan Samaj Party

6    CHITTA RANJAN MUNDA    M    37    Independent

7    DR. FAKIR MOHAN NAIK    M    34    Independent

S18    5    OR    MAYURBHANJ    23-Apr-09    1    GAMHA SINGH    M    57    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    DROUPADI MURMU    F    50    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    LAXMAN TUDU    M    47    Biju Janata Dal

4    LAXMAN MAJHI    M    62    Indian National Congress

5    SUDAM MARNDI    M    43    Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

6    LAXMISWAR TAMUDIA    M    68    Samajwadi Party

7    SUNDAR MOHAN MAJHI    M    65    Jharkhand Disom Party

8    DEVI PRASANNA BESRA    M    61    Independent

9    NARENDRA HANSDA    M    26    Independent

10    RAMESWAR MAJHI    M    29    Independent

S18    6    OR    BALASORE    23-Apr-09    1    ARUN JENA    M    47    Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

2    ARUN DEY    M    63    Nationalist Congress Party

3    MAHAMEGHA BAHAN AIRA KHARABELA SWAIN    M    55    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    SHRADHANJALI PRADHAN    F    40    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    SRIKANTA KUMAR JENA    M    58    Indian National Congress

6    DEBASISH RANJAN DASH    M    37    Samruddha Odisha

7    RAKESH RANJAN PATRA    M    27    Jana Hitkari Party

8    GHASIRAM MOHANTA    M    66    Independent

9    LAXIMIKANTA BEHERA    M    51    Independent

S18    7    OR    BHADRAK    23-Apr-09    1    ANANTA PRASAD SETHI    M    58    Indian National Congress

2    ARJUN CHARAN SETHI    M    68    Biju Janata Dal

3    NITYANANDA JENA    M    29    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    RATH DAS    M    54    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    GOLAK PRASAD MALLIK    M    60    Independent

6    SUSANTA KUMAR JENA    M    31    Independent

S18    8    OR    JAJPUR    23-Apr-09    1    AMIYA KANTA MALLIK    M    50    Indian National Congress

2    PARAMESWAR SETHI    M    40    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    MOHAN JENA    M    52    Biju Janata Dal

4    AJIT KUMAR JENA    M    42    Samruddha Odisha

5    BABULI MALLIK    M    36    Orissa Mukti Morcha

6    BHIMSEN BEHERA    M    44    Jana Hitkari Party

7    UDAYA NATH JENA    M    29    Independent

8    KALANDI MALLIK    M    28    Independent

S18    9    OR    DHENKANAL    23-Apr-09    1    KRISHNA CHANDRA SAHOO    M    48    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    CHANDRA SEKHAR TRIPATHY    M    60    Indian National Congress

3    TATHAGATA SATPATHY    M    53    Biju Janata Dal

4    RUDRANARAYAN PANY    M    49    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    PRIYABRATA GARNAIK    M    28    Kalinga Sena

S18    14    OR    CUTTACK    23-Apr-09    1    ANADI SAHU    M    68    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    GOPAL CHANDRA KAR    M    63    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    BIBHUTI BHUSAN MISHRA    M    57    Indian National Congress

4    BHARTRUHARI MAHTAB    M    51    Biju Janata Dal

5    KAPILA CHARAN MALL    M    72    Bira Oriya Party

6    PRADIP ROUTRAY    M    40    Kalinga Sena

7    DEBANANDA SINGH    M    33    Independent

S18    15    OR    KENDRAPARA    23-Apr-09    1    JNANDEV BEURA    M    44    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    RANJIB BISWAL    M    38    Indian National Congress

3    LENIN LENKA    M    46    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    BAIJAYANT PANDA    M    45    Biju Janata Dal

5    PRATAP CHANDRA JENA    M    60    Samruddha Odisha

6    PRAVAKAR NAYAK    M    48    Kalinga Sena

7    RAMA KRUSHNA DASH    M    44    Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)

8    SARAT CHANDRA SWAIN    M    49    Independent

S18    16    OR    JAGATSINGHPUR    23-Apr-09    1    BAIDHAR MALLICK    M    46    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    BIBHU PRASAD TARAI    M    42    Communist Party of India

3    BIBHUTI BHUSAN MAJHI    M    37    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    RABINDRA KUMAR SETHY    M    54    Indian National Congress

5    AKSHAYA KUMAR SETHI    M    25    Samruddha Odisha

S18    17    OR    PURI    23-Apr-09    1    JITENDRA KUMAR SAHOO    M    35    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    DEBENDRA NATH MANSINGH    M    59    Indian National Congress

3    PINAKI MISRA    M    49    Biju Janata Dal

4    BRAJA KISHORE TRIPATHY    M    62    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    KSHITISH BISWAL    M    80    Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

6    SABYASACHI MOHAPATRA    M    35    Kalinga Sena

7    PRABHAT KUMAR BADAPANDA    M    42    Independent

S18    18    OR    BHUBANESWAR    23-Apr-09    1    AKSHAYA KUMAR MOHANTY    M    46    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    ARCHANA NAYAK    F    43    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    PRASANNA KUMAR PATASANI    M    66    Biju Janata Dal

4    SANTOSH MOHANTY    M    58    Indian National Congress

5    UMA CHARANA MISHRA    M    60    Jana Hitkari Party

6    NABAGHAN PARIDA    M    66    Bira Oriya Party

7    PRAFUL KUMAR SAHOO    M    38    Republican Party of India (A)

8    BASANTA KUMAR BEHERA    M    47    Kalinga Sena

9    BIJAYANANDA MISHRA    M    51    Lok Jan Shakti Party

10    JAGANNATH PRASAD LENKA    M    75    Independent

11    DHIRENDRA SATAPATHY    M    67    Independent

12    PRAMILA BEHERA    F    33    Independent

13    SASTHI PRASAD SETHI    M    47    Independent

S23    1    TR    TRIPURA WEST    23-Apr-09    1    NILMANI DEB    M    55    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    KHAGEN DAS    M    71    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

3    SUDIP ROY BARMAN    M    45    Indian National Congress

4    SANJIB DEY    M    32    Nationalist Congress Party

5    ARUN CHANDRA BHOWMIK    M    63    All India Trinamool Congress

6    RAKHAL RAJ DATTA    M    60    Amra Bangalee

7    PARTHA KARMAKAR    M    40    Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)

8    TITU SAHA    M    32    Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

9    BINOY DEB BARMA    M    49    Independent

10    SUBRATA BHOWMIK    M    58    Independent

S23    2    TR    TRIPURA EAST    23-Apr-09    1    PULIN BEHARI DEWAN    M    69    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    BAJU BAN RIYAN    M    67    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

3    DIBA CHANDRA HRANGKHWAL    M    52    Indian National Congress

4    RITA RANI DEBBARMA    F    51    All India Trinamool Congress

5    KARNA DHAN CHAKMA    M    37    Amra Bangalee

6    FALGUNI TRIPURA    M    42    Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)

7    RAJESH DEB BARMA    M    34    Independent

8    BINOY REANG    M    34    Independent

9    MEVAR KUMAR JAMATIA    M    40    Independent

S24    37    UP    AMETHI    23-Apr-09    1    ASHEESH SHUKLA    M    48    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH    M    39    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    RAHUL GANDHI    M    38    Indian National Congress

4    BHUWAL    M    56    Janvadi Party(Socialist)

5    MOHD.HASAN LAHARI    M    35    Bharatiya Republican Paksha

6    SUNITA    F    26    Mahila Adhikar Party

7    SURYABHAN MAURYA    M    45    Rashtravadi Aarthik Swatantrata Dal

8    AAVID HUSSAIN    M    31    Independent

9    OMKAR    M    46    Independent

10    KAPIL DEO    M    30    Independent

11    DILIP    M    36    Independent

12    MIHILAL    M    52    Independent

13    MEET SINGH    M    65    Independent

14    RAMESH CHANDRA    M    30    Independent

15    RAM SHANKER    M    43    Independent

16    SWAMI NATH    M    25    Independent

S24    38    UP    SULTANPUR    23-Apr-09    1    ASHOK PANDEY    M    58    Samajwadi Party

2    MOHD.TAHIR    M    33    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    SURYA BHAN SINGH    M    54    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    DR.SANJAY SINGH    M    55    Indian National Congress

5    ANIL    M    35    Republican Party of India (A)

6    CHOTELAL MAURYA    M    40    Apna Dal

7    MOHD.UMAR    M    42    Peace Party

8    RAKESH    M    25    National Youth Party

9    RAJKUMAR PANDEY    M    36    Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

10    TRIVENI PRASAD BHEEM    M    52    Bharatiya Republican Paksha

11    ARVIND KUMAR    M    46    Independent

12    AWADHESH KUMAR    M    30    Independent

13    KRISHNA NARAYAN    M    33    Independent

14    JHINKURAM VISHWAKARMA    M    33    Independent

15    PRAKASH CHANDRA    M    35    Independent

16    HARI NARAYAN    M    70    Independent

S24    39    UP    PRATAPGARH    23-Apr-09    1    KUNWAR AKSHAYA PRATAP SINGH ‘GOPAL JI’    M    41    Samajwadi Party

2    RAJKUMARI RATNA SINGH    F    49    Indian National Congress

3    LAKSHMI NARAIN PANDEY ‘GURU JI’    M    57    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    PROF. SHIVAKANT OJHA    M    57    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    ATIQ AHAMAD    M    46    Apna Dal

6    ARUN KUMAR    M    48    Samajwadi Janata Party (Rashtriya)

7    A. RASHID ANSARI    M    54    Momin Conference

8    RAJESH    M    36    Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena

9    ATUL DWIVEDI    M    29    Independent

10    UDHAV RAM    M    53    Independent

11    CHHANGALAL    M    56    Independent

12    JITENDRA PRATAP SINGH    M    40    Independent

13    DINESH PANDEY ALIAS D.K. PANDEY    M    34    Independent

14    BADRI PRASAD    M    48    Independent

15    MUNEESHWAR SINGH    M    65    Independent

16    RAMESH KUMAR    M    31    Independent

17    RAVINDRA SINGH    M    33    Independent

18    RANI PAL    F    58    Independent

19    RAMMURTI MISHRA    M    36    Independent

20    RAM SAMUJH    M    60    Independent

21    VINOD    M    29    Independent

22    SHIVRAM    M    51    Independent

23    SATRAM    M    42    Independent

S24    48    UP    BANDA    23-Apr-09    1    AMITA BAJPAI    F    39    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    BHAGAWAN DEEN GARG    M    47    Indian National Congress

3    BHAIRON PRASAD MISHRA    M    55    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    SANTOSH KUMAR    M    54    Communist Party of India

5    R. K. SINGH PATEL    M    49    Samajwadi Party

6    ASHOK KUMAR    M    40    Indian Justice Party

7    ANAND YADAV    M    45    United Communist Party of India

8    PARASHU RAM NISHAD    M    45    Apna Dal

9    LALIT KUMAR    M    37    Ambedkar Samaj Party

10    ANSH DHARI    M    29    Independent

11    JAGAN NATH SINGH    M    62    Independent

12    PRAKASH NARAYAN    M    32    Independent

13    BALENDRA NATH    M    38    Independent

14    MANOJ KUMAR    M    30    Independent

15    SHIV KUMAR    M    43    Independent

S24    50    UP    KAUSHAMBI    23-Apr-09    1    GIRISH CHANDRA PASI    M    39    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    GAUTAM CHAUDHARY    M    44    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    RAM NIHOR RAKESH    M    64    Indian National Congress

4    SHAILENDRA KUMAR    M    51    Samajwadi Party

5    UMESH CHANDRA PASI    M    40    Apna Dal

6    GULAB SONKAR    M    45    Indian Justice Party

7    GULAB CHANDRA    M    39    Independent

8    JAGDEO    M    53    Independent

9    MAN SINGH    M    28    Independent

10    RAM SARAN    M    56    Independent

S24    51    UP    PHULPUR    23-Apr-09    1    KAPIL MUNI KARWARIYA    M    42    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    KARAN SINGH PATEL    M    50    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    DHARMARAJ SINGH PATEL    M    50    Indian National Congress

4    SHYAMA CHARAN GUPTA    M    63    Samajwadi Party

5    CHANDRAJEET    M    28    Lok Dal

6    DEVENDRA PRATAP SINGH    M    38    Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

7    PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA    M    49    Apna Dal

8    LALLAN SINGH    M    35    Rashtriya Swabhimaan Party

9    VIJAY KUMAR    M    56    Gondwana Mukti Sena

10    SATISH YADAV    M    34    Indian Justice Party

11    SANJEEV KUMAR MISHRA    M    30    Yuva Vikas Party

12    KRISHNA KUMAR    M    33    Independent

13    DR. NEERAJ    M    43    Independent

14    BHARAT LAL    M    52    Independent

15    DR. MILAN MUKHERJEE    M    67    Independent

16    MUNISHWAR SINGH MAURYA    M    65    Independent

17    RADHIKA PAL    F    34    Independent

18    RADHESHYAM SINGH YADAV    M    72    Independent

19    RAM JANM YADAV    M    31    Independent

20    RAMSHANKAR    M    47    Independent

21    VIRENDRA PAL SINGH    M    66    Independent

22    SHAILENDRA KUMAR PRAJAPATI    M    40    Independent

23    SAMAR BAHADUR SHARMA    M    40    Independent

24    DR. SONE LAL PATEL    M    59    Independent

S24    52    UP    ALLAHABAD    23-Apr-09    1    ASHOK KUMAR BAJPAI    M    58    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    YOGESH SHUKLA    M    39    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    KUNWAR REWATI RAMAN SINGH ALIAS MANI JI    M    65    Samajwadi Party

4    SHYAM KRISHNA PANDEY    M    65    Indian National Congress

5    OM PRAKASH    M    41    Rashtriya Machhua Samaj Party

6    GULAB GRAMEEN    M    47    Lok Dal

7    BIHARI LAL SHARMA    M    54    Apna Dal

8    BAIJAL KUMAR    M    48    Bahujan Sangharsh Party (Kanshiram)

9    RAMA KANT    M    47    Indian Justice Party

10    RAJESH PASI    M    32    Rashtriya Swabhimaan Party

11    RAM PARIKHAN SINGH    M    59    Janvadi Party(Socialist)

12    VIJAY SHANKAR    M    45    Bahujan Shakty

13    SARFUDDIN    M    32    Nelopa(United)

14    AKBAL MOHAMMD    M    34    Independent

15    AJUG NARAIN    M    33    Independent

16    ABHAY SRIVASTAVA    M    31    Independent

17    KM. KUSUM KUMARI AD    F    45    Independent

18    GOPAL SWROOP JOSHI    M    62    Independent

19    NARENDRA KUMAR TEWARI    M    47    Independent

20    BAJRANG DUTT    M    36    Independent

21    MUNNU PRASAD    M    44    Independent

22    RAVI PRAKASH    M    41    Independent

23    RAKESH KUMAR    M    47    Independent

24    RAJ BALI    M    51    Independent

25    RAM GOVIND    M    46    Independent

26    RAM JEET    M    38    Independent

27    RAM LAL    M    46    Independent

28    KM. SHASHI PANDEY    F    45    Independent

29    DR. MOHD. SALMAN RASHIDI    M    57    Independent

30    SADHNA AGARWAL    F    47    Independent

31    HIRA LAL    M    54    Independent

S24    54    UP    FAIZABAD    23-Apr-09    1    NIRMAL KHATRI    M    58    Indian National Congress

2    BIMLENDRA MOHAN PRATAP MISRA “PAPPU BHAIYA”    M    48    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    MITRASEN    M    76    Samajwadi Party

4    LALLU SINGH    M    54    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    AJAY KUMAR    M    25    Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena

6    ATUL KUMAR PANDEY    M    39    The Humanist Party of India

7    AMAR NATH JAISWAL    M    44    Rashtriya Kranti Party

8    GIRISH CHANDRA VERMA    M    32    Apna Dal

9    GULAM SABIR    M    42    Navbharat Nirman Party

10    CHANDRASHEKHAR SINGH    M    36    Bharat Punarnirman Dal

11    NUSRAT QUDDUSI ALIAS BABLOO    M    41    Peace Party

12    MANISH KUMAR PANDEY    M    35    Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha

13    SAIYYAD MUSHEER AHMED    M    55    Awami Party

14    RAMESH KUMAR RAWAT    M    42    Maulik Adhikar Party

15    SUSHIL KUMAR    M    45    Bharatiya Lok Kalyan Dal

16    ATAURR RAHMAN ANSARI    M    52    Independent

17    AMARNATH VERMA    M    36    Independent

18    DINA NATH PANDEY    M    35    Independent

19    NASREEN BANO    F    38    Independent

20    BALAK RAM ALIAS SHIV BALAK PASI    M    34    Independent

21    RAM DHIRAJ    M    46    Independent

22    SWAMI NATH    M    29    Independent

23    SIYARAM KORI    M    50    Independent

S24    55    UP    AMBEDKAR NAGAR    23-Apr-09    1    RAKESH PANDEY    M    55    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    VINAY KATIYAR    M    49    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    SHANKHLAL MAJHI    M    54    Samajwadi Party

4    DINESH KUMAR RAJBHAR    M    33    Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

5    BASANT LAL    M    53    Peace Party

6    BAL MUKUND DHURIYA    M    31    Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)

7    BHARTHARI    M    44    Bharatiya Republican Paksha

8    MANSHARAM    M    40    Maulik Adhikar Party

9    LALMAN    M    34    Janvadi Party(Socialist)

10    VIJAY KUMAR MAURYA    M    38    Rashtravadi Aarthik Swatantrata Dal

11    SANTOSH KUMAR    M    50    Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha

12    IFTEKHAR AHMAD    M    37    Independent

13    KAILASH KUMAR SHUKLA    M    60    Independent

14    GAYADEEN    M    43    Independent

15    CHANDRA BHUSHAN    M    61    Independent

16    DEO PRASAD MISHRA    M    42    Independent

17    NABAB ALI    M    55    Independent

18    PARASHU RAM    M    49    Independent

19    PATANJALI JAITALI    M    58    Independent

20    RAM SUKH SAHOO    M    50    Independent

21    DR. LAL BAHADUR    M    42    Independent

22    SRIRAM AMBESH    M    61    Independent

S24    57    UP    KAISERGANJ    23-Apr-09    1    MOHD ALEEM    M    46    Indian National Congress

2    BRIJBHUSHAN SARAN SINGH    M    52    Samajwadi Party

3    DR LALTA PRASAD MISHRA ALIS DR L P MISHRA    M    59    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    SURENDRA NATH AWASTHI    M    53    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    ZAMEER AHAMAD    M    53    Ambedkar National Congress

6    DAYA RAM    M    41    Peoples Democratic Forum

7    MANOJ KUMAR    M    33    Lok Dal

8    RAM PRAKSH    M    39    Republican Party of India (A)

9    RAMENDER DEV PATHAK    M    60    Peace Party

10    HAFEEZ    M    47    Apna Dal

11    ANOKHI LAL    M    49    Independent

12    OM PRAKASH    M    35    Independent

13    UDAI RAJ    M    52    Independent

14    CHANDRA BHAN    M    42    Independent

15    JAGDISH    M    40    Independent

16    JAGDISH PRASAD    M    38    Independent

17    JITENDRA BAHADUR    M    57    Independent

18    PARAMHANS SINGH    M    33    Independent

19    RAJ KISHORE SINGH    M    38    Independent

20    RADHEYSHYAM BOAT    M    62    Independent

21    RAMFEER ALIS CHUNTI    M    59    Independent

22    VINESH KUMAR    M    32    Independent

23    VIMAL VERMA    M    30    Independent

S24    58    UP    SHRAWASTI    23-Apr-09    1    RIZVAN ZAHEER    M    46    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    RUBAB SAIDA    F    58    Samajwadi Party

3    VINAY KUMAR ALIAS VINNU    M    45    Indian National Congress

4    SATYA DEO SINGH    M    63    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    ARUN KUMAR    M    33    Ambedkar National Congress

6    KULDEEP    M    44    Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

7    RAJESHWAR MISHRA    M    28    Peace Party

8    RAM ADHAR    M    62    Republican Party of India (A)

9    TEJ BAHADUR    M    32    Independent

10    RAM SUDHI    M    38    Independent

11    VINOD KUMAR PANDEY    M    27    Independent

S24    59    UP    GONDA    23-Apr-09    1    DR ACHUTANANDDUBE    M    64    Nationalist Congress Party

2    KIRTI VARDHAN SINGH RAJA BAIYA    M    43    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    BENI PRASAD VERMA    M    68    Indian National Congress

4    RAM PRATAP SINGH    M    58    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    VINOD KUMAR SINGH ALIAS PANDIT SINGH    M    42    Samajwadi Party

6    ASHIQ ALI    M    46    Peace Party

7    OM PRAKASH SINGH    M    54    Janvadi Party(Socialist)

8    PREM KUMAR    M    26    Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

9    RAJENDRA PRASAD1    M    55    Ambedkar National Congress

10    RAM KEWAL    M    41    Vanchit Jamat Party

11    RAM LOCHAN    M    46    Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha

12    VIDYA SAGAR    M    36    Apna Dal

13    HARSH VARDHAN PANDEY    M    33    Lok Dal

14    AKILENDRA KUMAR PATHAK    M    34    Independent

15    ANURADHA PATEL    F    42    Independent

16    OM PRAKASH    M    47    Independent

17    GAGNGA DHAR SHUKLA    M    38    Independent

18    DEEPAK    M    31    Independent

19    NARENDRA SINGH    M    34    Independent

20    BAIJNATH    M    30    Independent

21    RAJENDRA PRASAD    M    28    Independent

22    RADHEY SHYAM    M    59    Independent

23    RAM PRASAD    M    61    Independent

24    RAM LAKHAN    M    54    Independent

25    SATYA PRAKASH    M    39    Independent

S24    60    UP    DOMARIYAGANJ    23-Apr-09    1    JAGDAMBIKA PAL    M    59    Indian National Congress

2    JAI PRATAP SINGH    M    55    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    MATA PRASAD PANDEY    M    72    Samajwadi Party

4    MOHD. MUQUEEM    M    59    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    INAMULLAH CHAUDHARY    M    66    Peace Party

6    JITENDRA PRATAP SINGH    M    46    Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

7    PINGAL PRASAD    M    41    Republican Party of India

8    BALKRISHNA    M    39    Bahujan Sangharsh Party (Kanshiram)

9    MUKHDEV    M    41    Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

10    RAJDEV    M    35    Bharatiya Eklavya Party

11    RAM SAMUJH    M    41    Bharatiya Jan Berojgar Chhatra Dal

12    RAHUL SANGH PRIYA BHARTI    M    36    Indian Justice Party

13    HARISHANKAR    M    45    Lok Jan Shakti Party

14    MOTILAL VIDHYARTHI    M    59    Independent

15    RAM KRIPAL    M    58    Independent

16    SIRAJ AHAMAD    M    26    Independent

S24    61    UP    BASTI    23-Apr-09    1    ARVIND KUMAR CHAUDHARY    M    43    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    BASANT CHAUDHARY    M    43    Indian National Congress

3    RAJ KISHOR SINGH    M    38    Samajwadi Party

4    DR. Y. D. SINGH    M    64    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    OM PRAKASH    M    40    Vanchit Jamat Party

6    DAYASHANKAR PATWA    M    57    Peace Party

7    DALBAG SINGH    M    50    Bahujan Sangharsh Party (Kanshiram)

8    RAM NAYAN PATEL    M    49    Apna Dal

9    VINOD KUMAR RAJBHAR    M    33    Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

10    SHIVDAS    M    50    Shoshit Samaj Dal

11    SANJEEV KUMAR NISHAD    M    27    Bahujan Uday Manch

12    SITARAM NISHAD    M    63    Janvadi Party(Socialist)

13    RAM LALAN YADAV    M    36    Independent

14    SHIV POOJAN ARYA    M    52    Independent

15    SATYADEV OJHA    M    70    Independent

16    SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA    M    40    Independent

S24    62    UP    SANT KABIR NAGAR    23-Apr-09    1    KAMLA KANT CHAUDHARY    M    41    Communist Party of India

2    FAZLEY MAHAMOOD    M    41    Indian National Congress

3    BHAL CHANDRA YADAV    M    42    Samajwadi Party

4    BHISMA SHANKAR ALIAS KUSHAL TIWARI    M    44    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    SHARAD TRIPATHI    M    35    Bharatiya Janata Party

6    INDRA KUMAR    M    37    Bahujan Uday Manch

7    KRISHNA NAND MISHRA    M    38    All India Minorities Front

8    KHELADI    M    35    Bharatiya Republican Paksha

9    JANTRI LAL    M    37    Janvadi Party(Socialist)

10    PANCHOO BELDAR    M    48    Ambedkar Samaj Party

11    RAJESH SINGH    M    37    Peace Party

12    RAM ACHAL    M    34    Maulik Adhikar Party

13    RAM AVADH NISHAD    M    62    Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

14    LOTAN ALIAS LAUTAN PRASAD    M    47    Shoshit Samaj Dal

15    VINOD RAI    M    38    National Lokhind Party

16    ANJU    F    28    Independent

17    JOOGESH YADAV    M    35    Independent

18    NITYANAND MANI TRIPATHI    M    35    Independent

19    PHOOLDEO    M    49    Independent

20    RAMESH    M    26    Independent

21    VINAY PANDEY    M    31    Independent

22    SHRI BABA RAM CHANDRA    M    52    Independent

23    SUSHILA JIGYASU    F    29    Independent

24    HARISH CHANDRA    M    32    Independent

S24    73    UP    JAUNPUR    23-Apr-09    1    DHANANJAY SINGH    M    33    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    PARAS NATH YADAVA    M    54    Samajwadi Party

3    SEEMA    F    37    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    ACHHEYLAL NISHAD    M    61    Nelopa(United)

5    GIRAJA SHANKAR YADAVA    M    49    Gondvana Gantantra Party

6    GEETA SINGH    F    46    Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

7    BAHADUR SONKAR    M    48    Indian Justice Party

8    RAVI SHANKAR    M    38    Lok Jan Shakti Party

9    RAJKISHUN    M    26    Rashtriya Swabhimaan Party

10    RAJESH S/O RAMESHCHANDRA    M    30    Apna Dal

11    RAJESH S/O RAMYAGYA    M    32    Eklavya Samaj Party

12    RAMCHANDAR    M    52    Rashtravadi Aarthik Swatantrata Dal

13    SHEETALA PRASAD    M    51    Revolutionary Socialist Party

14    AJAY KASYAP – GUDDU    M    26    Independent

15    JAGDISH CHANDRA ASTHANA    M    62    Independent

16    TASLEEM AHMED REHMANI    M    45    Independent

S24    78    UP    BHADOHI    23-Apr-09    1    DR. AKHILESH KUMAR DWIVEDI    M    41    Nationalist Congress Party

2    GORAKHNATH    M    56    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    CHHOTELAL BIND    M    53    Samajwadi Party

4    DR. MAHENDRA NATH PANDEY    M    52    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    SURYMANI TIWARI    M    60    Indian National Congress

6    JAJ LAL    M    47    Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

7    NANDLAL    M    56    Vikas Party

8    RAMRATEE BIND    M    74    Apna Dal

9    THAKUR SANTOSH KUMAR    M    27    Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

10    SHAHID    M    42    Pragatisheel Manav Samaj Party

11    GAURISHANKAR    M    38    Independent

12    JEETENDRA    M    30    Independent

13    TEJ BAHADUR YADAV ADVOCATE    M    56    Independent

S27    1    JH    RAJMAHAL    23-Apr-09    1    CHANDRA SHEKHAR AZAD    M    38    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    JYOTIN SOREN    M    59    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

3    THOMAS HASDA    M    58    Rashtriya Janata Dal

4    DEVIDHAN BESRA    M    69    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    HEMLAL MURMU    M    54    Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

6    AAMELIYA HANSDA    F    29    Revolutionary Socialist Party

7    CHARAN MURMU    M    33    Shivsena

8    DAUD MARANDI    M    25    Samajwadi Party

9    SUKHWA URAON    M    33    Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

10    SUNDAR TUDU    M    45    Bharatiya Jagaran Party

11    SOM MARANDI    M    44    Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)

12    STIPHEN MARANDI    M    55    Jharkhand Jan Morcha

S27    2    JH    DUMKA    23-Apr-09    1    CHURKA TUDU    M    44    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    PASHUPATI KOL    M    29    Communist Party of India

3    RAMESH TUDU    M    34    Rashtriya Janata Dal

4    SHIBU SOREN    M    64    Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

5    SUNIL SOREN    M    30    Bharatiya Janata Party

6    ARJUN PUJHAR    M    33    Samajwadi Party

7    NIRMALA MURMU    F    33    Revolutionary Socialist Party

8    PHATIK CHANDRA HEMBRAM    M    64    All Jharkhand Students Union

9    BITIYA MANJHI    F    53    Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

10    RAMESH HEMBROM    M    39    Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)

11    RAMJIVAN DEHRI    M    35    Samata Party

12    KALESHWAR SOREN    M    38    Independent

13    CHARLES MURMU    M    27    Independent

14    NANDLAL SOREN    M    55    Independent

15    PULICE HEMRAM    M    31    Independent

16    BIVISAN PUJHAR    M    50    Independent

17    CYRIL HANSDA    M    63    Independent

18    SONA MURMU    F    56    Independent

19    HOPNA BASKI    M    57    Independent

S27    3    JH    GODDA    23-Apr-09    1    IQBAL DURRANI    M    50    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    DURGA SOREN    M    39    Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

3    NISHIKANT DUBEY    M    37    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    FURKAN ANSARI    M    61    Indian National Congress

5    ASHOK SHARMA    M    39    Jharkhand Party

6    GEETA MANDAL    F    39    Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

7    GOVIND LAL MARANDI    M    39    Revolutionary Socialist Party

8    JAWAHAR LAL YADAV    M    31    Lok Jan Shakti Party

9    NANDLAL YADAV    M    39    Samajwadi Party

10    NIRANJAN PRASAD YADAV    M    33    Rashtrawadi Sena

11    PRADEEP YADAV    M    42    Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)

12    PRADEEP YADAV    M    25    Samata Party

13    BINOD MEHARIA    M    56    Bahujan Shakty

14    RAJ NARAYAN KHAWADE    M    42    AJSU Party

15    SANTOSH KUMAR RAY    M    26    All India Trinamool Congress

16    SURAJ MANDAL    M    61    Jharkhand Vikas Dal

17    JAYSWAL MANJHI    M    38    Independent

18    JAHIR MUSTAKIM    M    35    Independent

19    MANOJ KUMAR MANDAL    M    35    Independent

20    MITHILESH PASWAN    M    38    Independent

21    MD. MOAJJAM ALI CHANCHAL    M    38    Independent

22    SHANKAR PRASAD KESHARI    M    39    Independent

23    SANJEEV KUMAR    M    27    Independent

S27    6    JH    GIRIDIH    23-Apr-09    1    AKLU RAM MAHTO    M    65    Communist Party of India

2    TEKLAL MAHTO    M    57    Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

3    BIJAY SINGH    M    48    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY    M    50    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    MD. HIMAYUN ANSARI    M    72    Rashtriya Janata Dal

6    MRINAL KANTI DEV    M    61    Socialist Party (Lohia)

7    RAVINDER MAHTO    M    43    Jharkhand Party (Naren)

8    SHIVA MAHTO    M    75    Marxist Co-Ordination

9    SABA AHMAD    M    62    Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)

10    INDRA DEV MAHTO    M    45    Independent

11    UMESH RISHI    M    43    Independent

12    NAND KISHOR PRASAD    M    64    Independent

13    BUDDHI NATH TIWARY    M    41    Independent

14    MAHAVIR PRASAD    M    36    Independent

15    MASOOM RAJA ANSARI    M    27    Independent

16    LALOO KEWAT    M    46    Independent

17    SHANKAR RAJAK    M    38    Independent

S27    7    JH    DHANBAD    23-Apr-09    1    CHANDRASHEKHAR DUBEY    M    66    Indian National Congress

2    PASHUPATI NATH SINGH    M    60    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    SAMARESH SINGH    M    68    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    INDU SINGH    F    32    Samata Party

5    JANARDAN PANDEY    M    56    All India Forward Bloc

6    DIN BANDHU SINGH    M    56    Socialist Party (Lohia)

7    PAWAN KUMAR JHA    M    28    Janata Dal (Secular)

8    PHUL CHAND MANDAL    M    66    Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)

9    M.K.MANDAL    M    62    Amra Bangalee

10    A.K. ROY    M    72    Marxist Co-Ordination

11    VIDESHI MAHATO    M    54    Jharkhand Vikas Dal

12    VIRENDRA PRADHAN    M    44    Lok Jan Shakti Party

13    SUNIL KUMAR    M    38    Indian Justice Party

14    MD. SULTAN    M    57    Jharkhand Party

15    HAFFIZUDDIN ANSARI    M    51    Samajwadi Party

16    ABDUL MUSTAFA    M    32    Independent

17    KARTIK MAHATO    M    44    Independent

18    JAI PRAKASH SINGH    M    39    Independent

19    JAIRAM SINGH    M    31    Independent

20    JITENDRA KUMAR SINGH    M    36    Independent

21    PHUL CHAND MAHATO    M    40    Independent

22    BAMA PADA BAURI    M    35    Independent

23    MADHUSUDAN RAJHANS    M    44    Independent

24    MANILAL MAHATO    M    27    Independent

25    MANOJ GANDHI    M    29    Independent

26    MANOJ PANDEY    M    29    Independent

27    MUNSI HEMBRAM    M    56    Independent

28    RAVI RANJAN SINHA    M    34    Independent

29    SHANKAR RAWANI    M    42    Independent

30    SALIM KHAN    M    42    Independent

31    SADHUSHARAN GOPE    M    46    Independent

32    SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH    M    57    Independent

S27    8    JH    RANCHI    23-Apr-09    1    RAJENDRA SINGH MUNDA    M    74    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

2    RAM TAHAL CHAUDHARY    M    66    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    MD. SARFUDDIN    M    46    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    SUBODH KANT SAHAY    M    57    Indian National Congress

5    AKHTAR ANSARI    M    53    Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)

6    AFSAR EMAM    M    48    Jharkhand PeopleÂ’S Party

7    MD. AJAD ANSARI    M    47    National Lokhind Party

8    JIPALAL SINGH MUNDA    M    45    Jharkhand Party (Naren)

9    DAYANAND GUPTA    M    39    Jharkhand Vikas Dal

10    SURENDRA KUMAR SUMAN    M    36    Samata Party

11    ANJANI PANDEY    M    51    Independent

12    AGAM LAL MAHTO    M    34    Independent

13    AFTAB ALAM    M    42    Independent

14    ARTI BEHRA    F    32    Independent

15    UPENDRA PD. SRIVASTAVA    M    65    Independent

16    KESHAV NARAYAN BHAGAT    M    49    Independent

17    KAILASH PAHAN    M    40    Independent

18    JANARDAN TIWARI    M    42    Independent

19    JITENDRA MAHTO    M    27    Independent

20    DEVENDRA THAKUR    M    48    Independent

21    BIRSA HEMBRAM    M    31    Independent

22    RANJEET MAHTO    M    49    Independent

23    RAMPODO MAHTO    M    37    Independent

24    ROSHAN LAL MAHTO    M    28    Independent

25    ROSAN PRASAD    M    25    Independent

26    LAL BABA MASANI    M    65    Independent

S27    9    JH    JAMSHEDPUR    23-Apr-09    1    AJEET KUMAR    M    39    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    ARJUN MUNDA    M    41    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    SUMAN MAHTO    F    44    Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

4    ARVIND KUMAR SINGH    M    47    Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)

5    ASHOK TRIPATHI    M    44    Samajwadi Party

6    KINKAR GOUR    M    41    Rashtravadi Aarthik Swatantrata Dal

7    KRISHN MURARI MISHRA    M    47    Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha

8    PARIKSHIT MAHATO    M    43    Lok Jan Shakti Party

9    MUBIN KHAN    M    50    Bahujan Shakty

10    RAJ KAPOOR MAHATO    M    35    Jharkhand Vikas Dal

11    SHARAT MAHATO    M    36    Jharkhand Party (Naren)

12    SHAILENDRA MAHTO    M    55    All Jharkhand Students Union

13    SHYAM NARAYAN SINGH    M    50    All India Trinamool Congress

14    SANDIP PAUL    M    43    Jharkhand Party

15    DR. SUNARAM HANSDA    M    41    Jharkhand Disom Party

16    HEMANT SINGH    M    37    Amra Bangalee

17    KRISHNA PRASAD    M    40    Independent

18    JOSAI MARDI    M    31    Independent

19    DILIP KALINDI    M    44    Independent

20    DILIP TUDU    M    41    Independent

21    PARAS NATH PRASAD    M    56    Independent

22    RAKESH KUMAR    M    30    Independent

23    RAJIV CHANDRA MAHATO    M    27    Independent

24    RAM CHANDRA PRASAD GUPTA    M    49    Independent

25    VICTOR A. LAZARUS    M    60    Independent

26    SITARAM TUDU    M    61    Independent

S27    10    JH    SINGHBHUM    23-Apr-09    1    BARKUWAR GAGRAI    M    41    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    BAGUN SUMBRUI    M    82    Indian National Congress

3    HIKIM CHANDRA TUDU    M    39    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    PREM SINGH MUNDRI    M    40    Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

5    MANGAL SINGH BOBONGA    M    42    Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)

6    SUKH RAM JONKO    M    62    Jharkhand Disom Party

7    ASHOK KUMAR TIU    M    47    Independent

8    MADHU KORA    M    38    Independent

9    HIKIM SOREN    M    46    Independent

S04    11    BR    KATIHAR    30-Apr-09    1    NIKHIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY    M    63    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    MUNNI DEVI    F    35    Independent

3    SHAH TARIQ ANWAR    M    58    Nationalist Congress Party

4    MADAN MOHAN NISHAD    M    62    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    MANOJ PARASAR    M    44    Jan Samanta Party

6    PHOOLO DEVI    F    40    Independent

7    AHMAD ASHFAQUE KARIM    M    53    Lok Jan Shakti Party

8    SUNIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY    M    39    Independent

9    MOHAMMAD HAMID MUBARAK    M    33    Independent

10    SHOBHA DEVI    F    40    Independent

11    MAHBOOB ALAM    M    52    Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

12    HIMRAJ SINGH    M    49    Independent

13    RAJESH GURNANI    M    38    Loktantrik Samata Dal

14    RAJGIRI SINGH    M    53    Independent

15    OM PRAKASH PODDAR    M    38    Bharatiya Jantantrik Janta Dal

16    MANENDRA KUMAR    M    38    Independent

17    BHOLA NATH KEWAT    M    60    Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

18    CHANDU MURMU    M    43    Jharkhand Disom Party

19    SHIV PUJAN PASWAN    M    31    Buddhiviveki Vikas Party

20    SHAMBHU ROY    M    38    Independent

21    NITESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY    M    31    Independent

22    BABU LAL MARANDI    M    33    Independent

23    KISHAN LAL AGRAWAL    M    32    Independent

S04    13    BR    MADHEPURA    30-Apr-09    1    VINOD KUMAR JHA    M    42    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    OM PRAKASH NARAYAN    M    44    Communist Party of India

3    TARA NAND SADA    M    52    Indian National Congress

4    PROF RAVINDRA CHARAN YADAV    M    49    Rashtriya Janata Dal

5    SHARAD YADAV    M    61    Janata Dal (United)

6    RAJO SAH    M    30    Loktantrik Samata Dal

7    DHANOJ KUMAR    M    26    Rashtravadi Janata Party

8    RAVINDRA KUMAR    M    33    Rashtra Sewa Dal

9    NIRMAL KUMAR SINGH    M    66    Samata Party

10    SAKAR SURESH YADAV    M    32    Independent

11    KISHOR KUMAR    M    33    Independent

12    BALWANT GADHWAL    M    29    Independent

13    TIRO SHARMA    M    59    Independent

14    KARPOORI RISHIDEO    M    29    Independent

15    AMIT ACHARYA    M    26    Independent

16    PRASANNA KUMAR    M    54    Independent

17    DHRUWA KUMAR    M    43    Independent

18    MAHADEV YADAV    M    55    Independent

19    PARMESHWARI PRASAD NIRALA    M    68    Independent

S04    25    BR    KHAGARIA    30-Apr-09    1    SATYA NARAYAN SINGH    M    66    Communist Party of India

2    PRADUMAN KUMAR    M    31    Independent

3    DINESHCHANDRA YADAV    M    50    Janata Dal (United)

4    HARI NANDAN SINGH    M    61    Samajwadi Janata Party (Rashtriya)

5    GULABRAJ    M    31    Independent

6    ASARFI PRASAD MEHTA    M    63    Bahujan Samaj Party

7    SIKANDAR PRASAD SHARMA    M    56    Independent

8    SANGRAM KUMAR    M    27    Independent

9    SURESH PODDAR    M    47    Bharatiya Jantantrik Janta Dal

10    SANJAY YADAV    M    41    Independent

11    NEHA CHAUHAN    F    27    Independent

12    MANJU KUMARI    F    31    Rashtra Sewa Dal

13    CHAUDHRY MEHBOOB ALI KAISER    M    42    Indian National Congress

14    BHARAT KUMAR YADAV    M    52    Kosi Vikas Party

15    RAM NANDAN YADAV    M    45    Independent

16    NAYEEMUDDIN4    M    42    Independent

17    LAL BAHADUR HIMALAYA    M    38    Independent

18    BABULU PASWAN    M    35    Navbharat Nirman Party

19    PAWAN KUMAR “SUMAN”    M    33    Independent

20    RAVINDRA KU. RANA    M    62    Rashtriya Janata Dal

S04    27    BR    BANKA    30-Apr-09    1    GRIDHARI YADAV    M    44    Indian National Congress

2    JAI PRAKASH NARAYAN YADAV    M    55    Rashtriya Janata Dal

3    DAMODAR RAWAT    M    47    Janata Dal (United)

4    MUKESH KUMAR SINGH    M    45    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    SANJAY KUMAR    M    45    Communist Party of India

6    ANIL KUMAR ALIAS ANIL GUPTA    M    40    Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)

7    AMRESHWAR KUMAR    M    29    Jago Party

8    ARBIND KUMAR SAH    M    42    Rashtriya Pragati Party

9    KEDAR PRASAD SINGH    M    61    Samajwadi Janata Party (Rashtriya)

10    MAHABUB ALAM ANSARI    M    50    Bharatiya Momin Front

11    RAJENDRA PANDIT NETAJI    M    57    Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (Ulgulan)

S06    1    GJ    KACHCHH    30-Apr-09    1    JAT POONAMBEN VELJIBHAI    F    37    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    DANICHA VALJIBHAI PUNAMCHANDRA    M    54    Indian National Congress

3    NAMORI MOHANBHAI LADHABHAI    M    50    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    CHAUHAN MOTILAL DEVJIBHA    M    49    Lokpriya Samaj Party

5    DR. TINA MAGANBHAI PARMAR    F    26    Bharatiya Natiional Janta Dal

6    DUNGARIYA BHARMALBHAI NARANBHAI    M    45    Samajwadi Party

7    PARMAR MUKESHBHAI MANDANBHAI    M    44    Indian Justice Party

8    BADIYA RAMESH GANGJI    M    44    Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

9    KANJI ABHABHAI MAHESHWARI    M    55    Independent

10    GARVA ASMAL THAKARSHI    M    44    Independent

11    GOVIND JIVABHAI DAFADA    M    50    Independent

12    BADIA GANGJI FAKIRA    M    55    Independent

13    MAHESHWARI GANGJI DAYABHAI    M    55    Independent

14    MAHESHWARI DHANJIBHAI KARSHANBHAI    M    51    Independent

15    MUNSHI BHURALAL KHIMJIBHAI    M    40    Independent

16    MANGALIYA LILBAI JIVANBHAI    F    42    Independent

17    VANZARA HIRABEN DALPATBHAI    F    35    Independent

18    SARESA NANJI BHANJIBHAI    M    42    Independent

S06    2    GJ    BANASKANTHA    30-Apr-09    1    GADHVI MUKESHKUMAR BHERAVDANJI    M    47    Indian National Congress

2    CHETANBHAI KALABHAI SOLANKI    M    28    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    CHAUDHARI HARIBHAI PARTHIBHAI    M    54    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    AMRUTBHAI LAKHUBHAI PATEL(FOSI)    M    49    Mahagujarat Janta Party

5    KATARIYA HASMUKHBHAI RAVJIBHAI    M    34    Akhand Bharti

6    NAGORI JHUBERKHAN LIYAKATKHAN    M    33    Adarsh Lok Dal

7    LODHA ISHVARBHAI MAHADEVBHAI    M    57    Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh

8    SAVJIBHAI PATHUBHAI RAJGOR    M    34    Vishva Hindustani Sangathan

9    KARNAVAT YOGESHKUMAR BHIKHABHAI    M    31    Independent

10    PATEL NAGJIBHAI PRAGJIBHAI    M    43    Independent

11    PARSANI MAHMAD SIKANDAR JALALBHAI    M    30    Independent

12    PUROHIT ASHOKBHAI CHHAGANBHAI    M    32    Independent

13    PANSAL KALABHAI PUNMABHAI    M    49    Independent

14    MAJIRANA BHOPAJI AASHAJI    M    68    Independent

15    MALI JAGDISHKUMAR HASTAJI    M    30    Independent

16    ROOTHAR LEBUJI PARBATJI    M    32    Independent

17    SHARDABEN BHIKHABHAI PARMAR    F    45    Independent

18    SIPAI AAIYUBBHAI IBRAHIMBHAI    M    35    Independent

19    SHRIMALI ASHOKBHAI BALCHANDBHAI    M    40    Independent

S06    3    GJ    PATAN    30-Apr-09    1    KHOKHAR MAHEBOOBKHAN RAHEMATKHAN    M    50    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    JAGDISH THAKOR    M    51    Indian National Congress

3    BAROT SANJAYBHAI MAGANBHAI    M    50    Nationalist Congress Party

4    RATHOD BHAVSINHBHAI DAHYABHAI    M    68    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    PATAVAT MAHAMMADBHAI SHARIFBHAI    M    50    Independent

6    PATEL NARANBHAI PRAGDASBHAI    M    55    Mahagujarat Janta Party

7    KANUBHAI BHURABHAI MAHESHVARI    M    60    Independent

8    CHAUDHARY KIRTIKUMAR JESANGBHAI    M    30    Independent

9    CHAUDHARY MANSINHBHAI MANABHAI    M    32    Independent

10    JUDAL GANESHBHAI MEGHRAJBHAI    M    35    Independent

11    THAKOR NATUJI HALAJI    M    48    Independent

12    THAKOR BHUPATSINH KANTIJI    M    29    Independent

13    DIVAN YASIN AHMAD MAHAMADSHAH    M    47    Independent

14    PATEL KALPESHBHAI SHANKARLAL    M    27    Independent

15    PATEL KIRITKUMAR CHIMANLAL    M    38    Independent

16    PATEL DILIPKUMAR LILACHAND    M    31    Independent

17    PATEL MANORBHAI VIRAMDAS    M    68    Independent

18    PATEL RAMESHBHAI GOVINDBHAI    M    45    Independent

19    BRAHMKSHATRIYA NIRUPABEN NATVARLAL    F    35    Independent

20    BRAHMKSHATRIYA BHAGVATIBEN KHETSINH    F    55    Independent

21    RABARI BABUBHAI LALLUBHAI    M    56    Independent

22    RAJPUT JAGATSINH SAMANTSANG    M    29    Independent

23    RAVAL BHURABHAI MOTIBHAI    M    45    Independent

24    VAGHELA SHIVUBHA RAMSING    M    53    Independent

25    SUNSARA AAMINBHAI USMANBHAI    M    35    Independent

S06    9    GJ    SURENDRANAGAR    30-Apr-09    1    BHATIYA NARANBHAI KEHARBHAI    M    45    Independent

2    VAGHELA SATUBHA KANUBHA    M    75    Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh

3    BHARATBHAI RAMNIKLAL MAKWANA    M    43    Independent

4    KOLI PATEL SOMABHAI    M    68    Indian National Congress

5    DEVJIBHAI GOVINDBHAI FATEPARA    M    51    Indian National Congress

6    MER LALJIBHAI CHATURBHAI    M    53    Bharatiya Janata Party

7    SONI PRAKASHBHAI GOVINDBHAI    M    51    Bharatiya Janata Party

8    KORDIA ALTAFBHAI VALIBHAI    M    25    Independent

9    PATEL MOHANBHAI DAHYABHAI    M    56    Bahujan Samaj Party

10    TUNDIYA PREMJIBHAI VIRJIBHAI    M    53    Independent

11    NAYAKPRA HITSH BHAGVANGIBHAI    M    40    Independent

12    DABHI MOHANBHAI TULSHIBHAI    M    63    Independent

13    DERVALIA MEDHABHAI KALABHAI    M    51    Independent

14    PATEL KHEMABHAI ISHVARBHAI    M    43    Independent

15    RABA HARSURBHAI RAMBHAI    M    63    Independent

16    JADAV BHAGWANBHAI MATHURBHAI    M    56    Independent

17    UKABHAI AMARABHAI MAKWANA    M    40    Independent

18    JAGRUTIBEN BABULAL GADA (SHAH)    F    39    Mahagujarat Janta Party

19    PATADIYA KHIMJIBHAI HARAJIVANBHAI    M    52    Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena

20    SOLANKI KARSHANBHAI JIVABHAI    M    38    Independent

21    PATEL ASHOKKUMAR CHIMANLAL    M    54    Independent

22    DHAVANIYA BACHUBHAI CHHAGANBHAI    M    58    Lokpriya Samaj Party

23    CHAVDA ASHOKBHAI KARSHANBHAI    M    33    Bahujan Samaj Party

24    SAVUKIYA LALJIBHAI MOHANLAL    M    50    Independent

25    MER MAVJIBHAI KUKABHAI    M    63    Independent

S06    10    GJ    RAJKOT    30-Apr-09    1    MULTANI SUBHANBHAI POPATBHAI    M    52    Independent

2    GOKALBHAI KHODABHAI PARMAR    M    53    Lokpriya Samaj Party

3    KIRANKUMAR VALJIBHAI BHALODIA    M    56    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    DHANSUKHBHAI CHUNIBHAI BHANDERI    M    46    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    DR. ZAKIRHUSEN MATHAKIYA    M    38    Samajwadi Party

6    ARVINDBHAI JADAVJIBHAI RATHOD    M    42    Independent

7    KUBAVAT BABUDAS CHHAGANDAS    M    63    Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh

8    PRAVINBHAI MEGHJIBHAI DENGADA    M    46    Independent

9    KUVARJIBHAI MOHANBHAI BAVALIA    M    54    Indian National Congress

10    JOSHI SUDHIRBHAI REVASHANKAR    M    67    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

11    JADEJA SATUBHA AMARSANG    M    41    National Secular Party

12    JADEJA NATUBHA AMARSANG    M    39    National Secular Party

13    DHEDHI DALEECHANDBHAI LIRABHAI    M    54    Bahujan Samaj Party

14    KHIMSURIYA BHANUBHAI RAMJIBHAI    M    47    Bahujan Samaj Party

15    NARENDRASINH TAPUBHA JADEJA    M    35    Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

16    HIRABHAI GORDHANBHAI CHANGELA    M    58    Independent

17    HARSODA MAHESH HIRABHAI    M    25    Independent

18    BHIKHABHAI KURJIBHAI SADADIYA    M    57    Bahujan Samaj Party

19    GAR PRAKASH KHIMJIBHAI    M    40    Independent

20    DUDHATRA MUKUNDBHAI GOVINDBHAI    M    41    Independent

21    SAROLA GEETABEN MANJIBHAI    F    32    Independent

22    RABARI MOMAIYABHAI ALABHAI    M    60    Independent

23    AJITSINH HARISINH JADEJA    M    55    Independent

24    DR.RAJESHKUMAR SHANTIBHIA MANKADIA    M    35    Independent

25    RAJGURU INDRANIL SANJAYBHAI    M    43    Indian National Congress

26    NAYANBHI HASHMUKHBHAI UPADHYAY    M    42    Independent

27    KESHUBHAI DHANJIBHAI VEKARIYA    M    30    Independent

28    MATHAKIA USMAN HASAN    M    56    Independent

29    BABUBHAI DEVJIBHAI GHAVA    M    42    Lok Jan Shakti Party

30    PATADIA VINODBHAI KHODABHAI    M    45    Independent

31    CHAVDA LAKHMANBHAI DEVJIBHAI    M    49    Republican Party of India

32    VEKARIYA PRAGJIBHAI NATHUBHAI    M    60    Independent

33    BHIKHABHAI KURJIBHAI SADADIA    M    57    Independent

34    VEKARIA ALPESHBHAI KESHUBHAI    M    32    Mahagujarat Janta Party

35    JASVANTBHAI RANCHHODBHAI SABHAYA    M    38    Samajwadi Party

36    PIPALIA BHARATBHAI SAVJIBHAI    M    52    Mahagujarat Janta Party

37    GORI BHARTIBEN MAHENDRABHAI    F    26    Independent

S06    13    GJ    JUNAGADH    30-Apr-09    1    BARAD JASHUBHAI DHANABHAI    M    54    Indian National Congress

2    BHUVA KAMLESHBHAI LALJIBHAI    M    48    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    SOLANKI DINUBHAI BOGHABHAI    M    51    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    AKHED MAHESHBHAI VALLABHBHAI    M    48    Indian Justice Party

5    KUNJADIYA VALLABHBHAI RAMBHAI    M    46    Akhil Bharatiya Manav Seva Dal

6    CHANDULAL BHANUBHAI DHADUK    M    42    Mahagujarat Janta Party

7    DANGAR BRIJESH RAMBHAI    M    31    Rashtrawadi Sena

S06    15    GJ    BHAVNAGAR    30-Apr-09    1    GOHILMAHAVIRSINHBHAGIRATHSINH    M    52    Indian National Congress

2    VAGHANI PRAKSHBHAI ARJANBHAI    M    38    Indian National Congress

3    RANA RAJENDRASINH GHANSHYAMSINH    M    53    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    MANDAVIA MANSUKHBHAI LAXMANBHAI    M    42    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    BORICHA VALJIBHAI BAGHABHAI    M    51    Bahujan Samaj Party

6    REVAR MANSUKHBHAI KHODIDASBHAI    M    40    Bahujan Samaj Party

7    ZADAFIA GORDHANBHAI PRAGJIBHAI    M    54    Mahagujarat Janta Party

8    ZADAFIA GORDHANBHAI PRAGJIBHAI    M    54    Mahagujarat Janta Party

9    ZADAFIA GORDHANBHAI PRAGJIBHAI    M    54    Mahagujarat Janta Party

10    YADAV TULSHIBHAI RAMJIBHAI    M    67    Samajwadi Party

11    YADAV TULSHIBHAI RAMJIBHAI    M    67    Samajwadi Party

12    YADAV TULSHIBHAI RAMJIBHAI    M    67    Samajwadi Party

13    SAPARIA DINESHBHAI NANUBHAI    M    45    Lokpriya Samaj Party

14    SAPARIA DINESHBHAI NANUBHAI    M    45    Lokpriya Samaj Party

15    SAPARIA DINESHBHAI NANUBHAI    M    45    Lokpriya Samaj Party

16    PANDYA ATULBHAI HARSHADRAI    M    46    Bharatiya Natiional Janta Dal

17    PANDYA ATULBHAI HARSHADRAI    M    46    Bharatiya Natiional Janta Dal

18    PANDYA ATULBHAI HARSHADRAI    M    46    Bharatiya Natiional Janta Dal

19    GOHIL NANAJIBHAI MADHABHAI    M    38    Republican Party of India (A)

20    GOHIL NANAJIBHAI MADHABHAI    M    38    Republican Party of India (A)

21    CHAUHAN PREMJIBHAI SHAMJIBHAI    M    42    Akhil Bharatiya Congress Dal (Ambedkar)

22    MAKWANA HARINBHAI RAMNIKLAL    M    37    Independent

23    MAKWANA HARINBHAI RAMNIKLAL    M    37    Independent

24    MAKWANA HARINBHAI RAMNIKLAL    M    37    Independent

25    GOHIL KISHORSINH BALAVANTSINH    M    54    Independent

26    GOHIL KISHORSINH BALAVANTSINH    M    54    Independent

27    GOHIL KISHORSINH BALAVANTSINH    M    54    Independent

28    KATARIA ZINABHAI NAGAJIBHAI    M    49    Independent

29    KATARIA ZINABHAI NAGAJIBHAI    M    49    Independent

30    KATARIA ZINABHAI NAGAJIBHAI    M    49    Independent

31    PUNANI MUKESHBHI MAGANBHAI    M    43    Independent

32    PUNANI MUKESHBHI MAGANBHAI    M    43    Independent

33    PUNANI MUKESHBHI MAGANBHAI    M    43    Independent

34    CHAUHAN DHIRUBHAI KARSHANBHAI    M    39    Independent

35    CHAUHAN DHIRUBHAI KARSHANBHAI    M    39    Independent

36    CHAUHAN DHIRUBHAI KARSHANBHAI    M    39    Independent

37    SONANI NARESHBHAI NANAJIBHAI    M    36    Independent

38    SONANI NARESHBHAI NANAJIBHAI    M    36    Independent

39    SONANI NARESHBHAI NANAJIBHAI    M    36    Independent

40    CHUDASAMA MEPABHAI MAVJIBHAI    M    42    Independent

41    CHUDASAMA MEPABHAI MAVJIBHAI    M    42    Independent

42    CHUDASAMA MEPABHAI MAVJIBHAI    M    42    Independent

43    SOLANKI MAHAMADRAFIKBHAI IBRAHIMBHAI    M    50    Independent

44    SOLANKI MAHAMADRAFIKBHAI IBRAHIMBHAI    M    50    Independent

45    SOLANKI MAHAMADRAFIKBHAI IBRAHIMBHAI    M    50    Independent

46    DABHI DEVJIBHAI MEGHABHAI    M    29    Independent

47    DABHI DEVJIBHAI MEGHABHAI    M    29    Independent

48    DABHI DEVJIBHAI MEGHABHAI    M    29    Independent

49    PATEL KALPESHBHAI ASHOKBHAI    M    30    Independent

50    PATEL KALPESHBHAI ASHOKBHAI    M    30    Independent

51    PATEL KALPESHBHAI ASHOKBHAI    M    30    Independent

S06    18    GJ    PANCHMAHAL    30-Apr-09    1    MANSURI MUKHTYAR MOHAMAD    M    49    Akhil Bharatiya Manav Seva Dal

2    VAGHELA SHANKERSINH LAXMANSINH    M    68    Indian National Congress

3    PATEL PROSOTTAMBHAI MANGALBHAI    M    53    Indian National Congress

4    BAROT PRAKASHKUMAR MANEKLAL    M    53    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    CHAUHAN PRABHATSINH PRATAPSINH    M    67    Bharatiya Janata Party

6    MALIVAD KALUBHAI HIRABHAI    M    58    Bharatiya Janata Party

7    SHAIKH KALIM A.LATIF    M    42    Lok Jan Shakti Party

8    SHUKLA ARVINDKUMAR JYANTILAL    M    66    Bahujan Samaj Party

9    BHABHOR RASILABEN SAMSUBHAI    F    26    Indian Justice Party

S06    19    GJ    DAHOD    30-Apr-09    1    KATARA SINGJIBHAI JALJIBHAI    M    62    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

2    KALARA RAMSINGBHAI NANJIBHAI    M    37    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    DAMOR SOMJIBHAI PUNJABHAI    M    70    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    TAVIYAD DR. PRABHABEN KISHORSINH    F    54    Indian National Congress

5    MEDA KALSINGBHAI TAJSINHBHAI    M    57    Nationalist Congress Party

6    PARMAR DINESHBHAI NAGJIBHAI    M    28    Indian Justice Party

7    BARIYA NAVALSINGBHAI MADIABHAI    M    39    Mahagujarat Janta Party

8    MUNIA KAMALSINH CHHAGANBHAI    M    61    Samajwadi Party

S06    20    GJ    VADODARA    30-Apr-09    1    GAEKWAD SATYAJITSINH DULIPSINH    M    46    Indian National Congress

2    PUROHIT VINAYKUMAR RAMANBHAI    M    36    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    BALKRISHNA KHANDERAO SHUKLA    M    45    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    GIRISHBHAI MADHAVLAL BHAVSAR    M    42    Independent

5    THAVARDAS AMULRAI CHOITHANI    M    63    Independent

6    DASGUPTA TAPANBHAI SHANTIMAY    M    45    Independent

7    PARMAR BHARTIBEN KISHORCHANDRA    F    36    Independent

8    MALEK MAHEBUBBHAI RAHIMBHAI    M    42    Independent

9    VASAVA HARILAL SHANABHAI    M    46    Independent

S06    21    GJ    CHHOTA UDAIPUR    30-Apr-09    1    RATHWA RAMSINGBHAI PATALBHAI    M    57    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    RATHWA NARANBHAI JEMLABHAI    M    55    Indian National Congress

3    BHIL PRAKASHBHAI SOMABHAI    M    36    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    RATHWA SATISHBHAI RAMANBHAI    M    32    Janata Dal (United)

5    VASAVA(BHIL) VITTHALBHAI VENIBHAI    M    63    Independent

S06    22    GJ    BHARUCH    30-Apr-09    1    PATEL MEHRUNNISHA VALLIBHAI    F    40    Lok Jan Shakti Party

2    PATHAN JAHANGIRKHA AHEMADKHA    M    69    Indian National Congress

3    PATHAN JAHANGIRKHA AHEMADKHA    M    69    Indian National Congress

4    MANSUKHBHAI DHANJIBHAI VASAVA    M    52    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    UGHARATDAR UMARJI AHMED    M    64    Indian National Congress

6    UGHARATDAR UMARJI AHMED    M    64    Indian National Congress

7    UGHARATDAR UMARJI AHMED    M    64    Indian National Congress

8    UGHARATDAR UMARJI AHMED    M    64    Indian National Congress

9    MANSUKHBHAI DHANJIBHAI VASAVA    M    52    Bharatiya Janata Party

10    MANSUKHBHAI DHANJIBHAI VASAVA    M    52    Bharatiya Janata Party

11    MORI CHHATRASINH PUJABHAI    M    53    Bharatiya Janata Party

12    MORI CHHATRASINH PUJABHAI    M    53    Bharatiya Janata Party

13    MORI CHHATRASINH PUJABHAI    M    53    Bharatiya Janata Party

14    VASAVA SURESHBHAI GORDHANBHAI    M    40    Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh

15    VASAVA DILIPKUMAR GULSINGBHAI    M    32    Independent

16    PANDEY SANATKUMAR RAJARAMBHAI    M    32    Bahujan Samaj Party

17    BASHIRBHAI MAHAMEDBHAI FOJDAR    M    44    Independent

18    VASAVA CHHOTUBHAI AMARSINHBHAI    M    62    Janata Dal (United)

19    BHAGAT ANILKUMAR CHHITUBHAI    M    44    Janata Dal (United)

20    LAD MAHIPATBHAI MAGANBHAI    M    52    Independent

21    PATEL THAKORBHAI CHANDULAL    M    58    Independent

22    HEMANTKUMAR JERAMBHAI GOHIL    M    31    Independent

23    MANGROLA KANAKSINH MOHANSINH    M    58    Samajwadi Party

24    MANGROLA VIKRAMSINH KANAKSINH    M    28    Samajwadi Party

25    PATEL NARESHKUMAR BHAGVANBHAI    M    48    Mahagujarat Janta Party

26    PATEL NARESHKUMAR BHAGVANBHAI    M    48    Mahagujarat Janta Party

27    NARENDRASINH RANDHIRSINH VASHI    M    37    Loktantrik Samajwadi Party

28    PARMAR BALVANTSINH VIJAYSINH    M    53    Nationalist Congress Party

29    PATHAN NISHARKHAN ZAHIRKHAN    M    38    Independent

30    LAKDAWALA SHAKIL AHMED    M    43    Independent

31    PATEL USMANBHAI GULAMBHAI    M    26    Independent

S06    25    GJ    NAVSARI    30-Apr-09    1    NAIK YOGESHKUMAR THAKORBHAI    M    54    Nationalist Congress Party

2    C. R. PATIL    M    54    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    RAJPUT DHANSUKHABHAI BHAGVATIPRASAD    M    51    Indian National Congress

4    SHAILESHBHAI BISHESWAR SHRIVASTAV    M    37    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    AMULKUMAR DHIRUBHAI DESAI    M    46    Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh

6    AAZADKUMAR CHATURBHAI PATEL    M    33    Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Party

7    YADAV GANGAPRASAD LALANBHAI    M    55    Mahagujarat Janta Party

8    KANUBHAI DEVJIBHAI SUKHADIA    M    47    Independent

9    JASHAVANTBHAI DALPATBHAI PANCHAL    M    48    Independent

10    TARUNBHAI CHAMPAKBHAI PATEL    M    39    Independent

11    PATEL PRAVINCHANDRA MANILAL    M    52    Independent

12    PRAKASH MANHAR SHAH    M    45    Independent

13    PRAVINBHAI RANGILDAS KAPASIYAWALA    M    71    Independent

14    YADAV RAJENDRAKUMAR RAMRAJ    M    35    Independent

15    RATHOD GOVINDBHAI LAXMANBHAI    M    52    Independent

16    VARANKAR KAMALBEN KASHIRAM    F    50    Independent

17    SHATRUDHANDAS OMKARDAS SUGAT (BAIRAGI)    M    78    Independent

18    SATYAJIT JAYANTILAL SHETH    M    41    Independent

S06    26    GJ    VALSAD    30-Apr-09    1    DHIRUBHAI CHHAGANBHAI PATEL    M    53    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    NARESHBHAI MAGANBHAI PATEL    M    41    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    LAXMANBHAI CHHAGANBHAI VARLI    M    51    Independent

4    BHOYE NAYNESHBHAI MADHUBHAI    M    31    Samajwadi Party

5    GAVLI CHHAGANBHAI PILUBHAI    M    43    Bahujan Samaj Party

6    PATEL PANKAJKUMAR PRABHUBHAI    M    40    Aadivasi Sena Party

7    KISHANBHAI VESTABHAI PATEL    M    46    Indian National Congress

8    JEETUBHAI HARJIBHAI CHAUDHARI    M    45    Indian National Congress

9    RAMBHAI KOYABHAI PATEL    M    59    Independent

S10    3    KA    BAGALKOT    30-Apr-09    1    SHANKAR TELI    M    33    Independent

2    MANOHAR H.AYYANNAVAR    M    51    Independent

3    MALAKAJAPPANAVAR BASAYYA    M    49    Janata Dal (Secular)

4    KALLAPPA REVANASIDDAPPA KADECHUR    M    43    Independent

5    JAGADISH TIMMANAGOUDA PATIL    M    59    Indian National Congress

6    BASAVARAJ KALAKAPPA PUJAR    M    42    Nationalist Congress Party

7    HULLANAGOUDA CHANDANAGOUDA PATIL    M    70    Independent

8    GADDIGOUDAR PARVATGOUDA    M    56    Bharatiya Janata Party

9    PATIL JAGADISH    M    59    Indian National Congress

10    DANAPPA MALLAPPA ASANGI    M    38    Independent

11    CHINCHOLI SANTOSHKUMAR SAHEBGOUDA    M    25    Independent

12    GADADANNAVAR RAMANNA BHIMAPPA    M    47    Karnataka Rajya Ryota Sangha

13    CHANDRASHEKHAR HANAMANT BANDIWADDAR    M    29    Akhil Bharatiya Manav Seva Dal

14    PARASHURAM JALAGAR    M    48    Pyramid Party of India

15    PARASHURAM JALAGAR    M    48    Janata Dal (Secular)

16    KRISHNAGOUDA RANGANAGOUDA PATIL    M    56    Independent

17    R. RAMESH BABU    M    38    Janata Dal (Secular)

18    R.RAMESH BABU    M    38    Janata Dal (Secular)

19    BADASHA RAJESAB MUJAWAR    M    40    Independent

20    KRISHNAGOUDA RANGANAGOUDA PATIL    M    56    Independent

21    PATIL VIJAYKUMAR    M    46    Janata Dal (Secular)

22    PANDIT BODALI    M    33    Independent

23    GADADANNAVAR RAMANNA BHIMAPPA    M    47    Independent

24    GADADANNAVAR RAMANNA BHIMAPPA    M    47    Independent

25    R.RAMESH BABU    M    38    Independent

26    R.RAMESH BABU    M    38    Independent

27    RENUKARADHYA HIREMATH    M    29    Independent

28    SANNAGOUDAR GURURAJ SATYAPPAGOUDA    M    27    Independent

29    PAKALI FAROOQ    M    33    Bahujan Samaj Party

30    SINDHUR GURUBASAVARYA    M    48    Janata Dal (Secular)

31    NAZIR DUNDASI    M    31    Independent

32    SANGMESH .G. BHAVIKATTI    M    29    Independent

S10    10    KA    HAVERI    30-Apr-09    1    RAMACHANDRAPPA GUDDAPPA BILLAL    M    59    Independent

2    CHANDRAGOUDA HANUMANTA GOUDA PATIL    M    29    Independent

3    FAKKIRESH SHAMBHU BIJAPUR    M    39    Independent

4    SHIVAKUMAR CHANNABASAPPA UDASI    M    42    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    BASAVARAJ SHANKRAPPA DESAI    M    38    Independent

6    JAGADEESH YANKAPPA DODDAMANI    M    35    Independent

7    RAJESAB RAHAMANSAB SIDNEKOPPA    M    65    Independent

8    PRABHU K PATIL    M    31    Janata Dal (United)

9    JAVALI ASHOKAPPA MALLAPPA    M    43    Nationalist Congress Party

10    RAMACHANDRASA SAHASRARJUNSA HABIB    M    26    Independent

11    IGAL DILLPPA KARIYAPPA    M    52    Bahujan Samaj Party

12    KRISHNAJI RAGHAVENDRARAO OMKAR    M    32    Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha

13    MULLANAVAR ABDULRAJAK MODINSAB    M    49    Bahujan Samaj Party

14    MEHABUB KUTUBSAB NADAF    M    47    Independent

15    SALEEM AHAMAD    M    45    Indian National Congress

16    PATIL SHIVAKUMARGOUDA    M    42    Janata Dal (Secular)

17    MANJUNATH KALAVEERAPPA PANCHANAN    M    38    Independent

18    DESAI MALLIKARJUN BASAPPA    M    61    Independent

19    SALEEM AKBAR NAIK    M    30    Independent

20    DAYANAND RAMACHANDRA RATHOD    M    35    Independent

21    ALLABAX TIMMAPUR    M    34    Independent

22    BADIGER KOTESHWAR    M    28    Independent

23    VASTRAD VEERBHADRAYYA KALAKAYYA    M    47    Bharatiya Janata Party

S10    11    KA    DHARWAD    30-Apr-09    1    PRALHAD JOSHI    M    46    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    CHANNABASAPPA.S.KUSUGAL    M    48    Independent

3    RAJANNA.P.KADDLYANAVARAMATH    M    36    Independent

4    KUNNUR MANJUNATH CHANNAPPA    M    55    Indian National Congress

5    BAGWAN NASIR PAPULSAB    M    51    Janata Dal (Secular)

6    RAMACHANDRA KALINGAPPA MAHAR    M    59    Independent

7    TALAKALLAMATH MAHESH GURUPADAYYA    M    52    Nationalist Congress Party

8    ASHOK BADDI    M    38    Independent

9    KURUBAR BEERAPPA    M    38    Independent

10    BABUSAB KASHEEMNAVAR    M    61    Janata Dal (Secular)

11    PATIL GURUPADAGOUDA    M    62    Independent

12    JANUMALA BASKAR    M    39    Independent

13    BASANGOUDA HANSI    M    63    Independent

14    PANCH MAHALDAR    M    38    Independent

15    NIRJAN HANMANTSA    M    40    Janata Dal (United)

16    SHANKRAPPA YADAVANNAVAR    M    50    Independent

17    SONDUR RAGHAVENDRA SRINIVAS    M    46    Janata Dal (Secular)

18    ALLISAB SANDIMANI    M    30    Independent

19    KILLADAR ALLABAKSH    M    52    Nationalist Congress Party

20    TAKAPPA KALAL    M    59    Independent

21    MULLA KASHIMASAB    M    57    Bahujan Samaj Party

22    PREMANATH KASHAPPA CHIKKTUMBAL    M    31    Bahujan Samaj Party

23    MARUTI RAMAPPA HANASI    M    40    Independent

24    DADAPEER KOPPAL    M    50    Ambedkar National Congress

25    KALLIMANI IBRAHIM    M    32    Independent

26    IMAMHUSEN KUNDAGOL    M    46    Independent

27    GADAGKAR MOHAMMAD YOOSUF    M    56    Muslim League Kerala State Committee

28    SHANKRAPPA JINNAKAR    M    63    Independent

29    HULLI MOHAMMEDALI    M    67    Independent

30    JAMIRAHMEDKHAN    M    27    Independent

31    MOHAMMED ISMAIL BHADRAPUR    M    28    Independent

32    BIJAPUR JALALSAHEB    M    78    Independent

33    BALANNAVAR BASAVARAJ    M    30    Independent

34    KASHEEMNAVAR BABUSAB    M    61    Independent

35    PATIL GURUPADAGOUDA    M    62    Janata Dal (Secular)

S10    13    KA    DAVANAGERE    30-Apr-09    1    RAMESH HULI    M    35    Independent

2    MUJEEB PATEL M.H.K.    M    25    Independent

3    DR. SRIDHARA UDUPA    M    56    Independent

4    SUBHAN KHAN    M    45    Independent

5    SIDDESWARA G.M.    M    56    Bharatiya Janata Party

6    DR.RAJU C.    M    44    Independent

7    MALLIKARJUN S.S.    M    42    Indian National Congress

8    IDLI RAMAPPA    M    46    Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

9    NAGARAJA    M    30    Independent

10    H K KENCHVEERAPPA    M    65    Independent

11    L.H. PATIL    M    41    Independent

12    RAJASHEKHARAYYA B.    M    62    Independent

13    DR. HIDAYATHUR RAHMAN KHAN    M    36    Bahujan Samaj Party

14    NINGAPPA A.    M    77    Independent

15    MALLIKARJUN L.S.    M    39    Independent

16    AMANULLA KHAN J.    M    35    Independent

17    JAYANNA ITAGI    M    38    Independent

18    ALUR M.G. SWAMY    M    62    Independent

19    SATHISH B.M    M    45    Independent

20    INAYAT ALI KHAN    M    31    Independent

21    YOGESHWARA RAO SINDHE    M    42    Independent

22    RAJASHEKAR    M    44    Independent

23    HANUMANTHAPPA    M    32    Independent

24    MANJUNATH K.    M    43    Independent

25    MAHESH Y.    M    40    Independent

26    EHSANULLA PATEL H.M.    M    53    Independent

27    SUDESH G.M.    M    31    Akhila India Jananayaka Makkal Katchi (Dr. Issac)

28    CHANDRASHEKARAPPA S.    M    59    Independent

29    VEERESH T.    M    35    Independent

30    SIDDESHI G.    M    42    Independent

31    MARUTHI H.    M    51    Independent

32    GNANA PRAKASH B.    M    30    Independent

33    ESWARAPPA H.    M    30    Independent

34    NAGARAJAPPA    M    46    Independent

35    KALLERUDRESHAPPA K.B.    M    49    Janata Dal (Secular)

S10    14    KA    SHIMOGA    30-Apr-09    1    UMESHKUMAR S    M    38    Janata Dal (United)

2    N DINESH KUMAR    M    40    Independent

3    M.P. SRIDHAR. BYNDOOR    M    44    Independent

4    AKHIL AHMED    M    45    Independent

5    H.S. SHEKARAPPA    M    47    Independent

6    J. JAYAPPA    M    40    Bahujan Samaj Party

7    S. BANGARAPPA    M    76    Indian National Congress

8    D.S. ESHWARAPPA    M    41    Independent

9    T. CHAKRAVARTI NAYAKA    M    70    Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

10    MAINUDDIN.M.S    M    35    Independent

11    C. MURUGAN    M    29    Akhila India Jananayaka Makkal Katchi (Dr. Issac)

12    B,Y. RAGHAVENDRA    M    36    Bharatiya Janata Party

13    Y.H. NAGARAJA    M    51    Independent

14    MANJAPPA. S.    M    58    Independent

15    RANGANATHA T.L.    M    50    Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha

16    H.G. LOKESHA    M    47    Independent

17    V. SHAIK MEHABOOB    M    43    Independent

S10    15    KA    UDUPI CHIKMAGALUR    30-Apr-09    1    GANAPATHI SHETTIGARA    M    58    Independent

2    SRINIVASA    M    51    Independent

3    DENIAL FEDRIK RANGER    M    35    Independent

4    JAYAPRAKASH HEGDE    M    57    Indian National Congress

5    JAYAPRAKASH HEGDE    M    57    Indian National Congress

6    JAYAPRAKASH HEGDE    M    57    Indian National Congress

7    JAYAPRAKASH HEGDE    M    57    Indian National Congress

8    SMT. RADHA    F    49    Communist Party of India

9    SMT. RADHA    F    49    Communist Party of India

10    SMT. RADHA    F    49    Communist Party of India

11    DR. SRIDHAR UDUPA    M    56    Independent

12    UMESH KUMARA    M    38    Independent

13    B.VINAYAK MALLYA    M    26    Independent

14    STEVEN JOHN MENEZES    M    43    Bahujan Samaj Party

15    STEVEN JOHN MENEZES    M    43    Bahujan Samaj Party

16    ABDUL RASHEED    M    40    Independent

17    ABDUL RASHEED    M    40    Independent

18    VENKATRAMANA HEGADE.B    M    39    Jai Vijaya Bharathi Party

19    D.V.SADANANDA GOWDA    M    56    Bharatiya Janata Party

20    D.V.SADANANDA GOWDA    M    56    Bharatiya Janata Party

21    D.V.SADANANDA GOWDA    M    56    Bharatiya Janata Party

22    D.V.SADANANDA GOWDA    M    56    Bharatiya Janata Party

S10    16    KA    HASSAN    30-Apr-09    1    KOVI BABANNA    M    47    Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

2    B. C. VIJAYAKUMAR    M    43    Independent

3    A. P. AHAMED    M    66    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    B. SHIVRAMU    M    58    Indian National Congress

5    K. H. HANUME GOWDA    M    78    Bharatiya Janata Party

6    S. HARISH(S. C. S)    M    37    Independent

7    AIJAZ AHAMED FAROOQI    M    52    Republican Party of India (A)

8    H. D. DEVEGOWDA    M    76    Janata Dal (Secular)

9    KODIHALLI CHANDRASHEKAR    M    51    Sarvodaya Karnataka Paksha

10    M. MAHESH URF HARSHA    M    38    Independent

11    K. SHANMUKHA    M    42    Independent

12    RAJANI NARAYANAGOWDA    M    34    Independent

13    K. REVANNA    M    34    Independent

14    G. P. SANTHOSH GUPTHA    M    28    Independent

15    B. LOHITHGOWDA KUNDURU    M    30    Bharatiya Janata Party

16    BOMMEGOWDA    M    62    Independent

17    T. R. VIJAYA KUMAR    M    33    Independent

18    DEVARAJ. P. B    M    26    Independent

19    DYAVEGOWDA    M    53    Independent

S10    17    KA    DAKSHINA KANNADA    30-Apr-09    1    SUPREETHA KUMAR POOJARY    M    31    Independent

2    JANARDHANA POOJARY    M    71    Indian National Congress

3    VASUDEVA M P    M    49    Independent

4    DR.THIRUMALA RAYA HALEMANE    M    55    Independent

5    G.MOHAMMED    M    48    Independent

6    K RAMA BHAT URIMAJALU    M    78    Independent

7    ABDUL RAZAK    M    50    Independent

8    MADHAVA B    M    71    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

9    MOHAMMED SALI    M    40    Independent

10    GIRISH A RAI    M    47    Bahujan Samaj Party

11    NALIN KUMAR KATEEL    M    42    Bharatiya Janata Party

12    K MONAPPA BHANDARY    M    57    Bharatiya Janata Party

13    C AHAMMAD JAMAL    M    54    Muslim League Kerala State Committee

14    ANANDA GATTY    M    59    Independent

15    SUBRAHMANYA KUMAR KUNTIKANA MATA    M    36    Independent

16    DR.U.P.SHIVANANDA    M    59    Independent

S10    20    KA    MANDYA    30-Apr-09    1    SHAMBHULINGEGOWDA    M    48    Independent

2    KOWDLEY CHANNAPPA    M    60    Janata Dal (United)

3    K S NANJAPPA    M    56    Independent

4    K S PUTTANNAIAH    M    60    Sarvodaya Party

5    N NANJUNDAIAH    M    57    Independent

6    S B SHIVALINGEGOWDA    M    62    Indian National Congress

7    SUMANTH    M    60    Independent

8    M KRISHNAMURTHY    M    35    Bahujan Samaj Party

9    VENKTESH R    M    37    Independent

10    T S ASHRAF    M    33    Independent

11    SHIVARAMU    M    41    Independent

12    L R SHIVARAMEGOWDA    M    53    Bharatiya Janata Party

13    SHAKUNTHALA    F    29    Independent

14    H S RAMANNA    M    45    Independent

15    H R CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH    M    43    Independent

16    BALASUBRAMANIAN    M    38    Independent

17    CHELUVARAYA SWAMY    M    49    Janata Dal (Secular)

18    M H AMARANATH @ AMBAREESH    M    57    Indian National Congress

19    CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH    M    46    Independent

20    N J RAJESH    M    35    Independent

21    KEMPEGOWDA    M    36    Independent

22    BOREGOWDA    M    57    Independent

23    M P MUNAVAR SHARIF    M    50    Independent

24    H V MADEGOWDA    M    47    Independent

25    K SHIVANAND    M    45    Independent

26    K KEMPEGOWDA    M    47    Independent

27    JHONSON CHINNAPPAN    M    32    Independent

S10    21    KA    MYSORE    30-Apr-09    1    C.H.VIJAYASHANKAR    M    53    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    SRINATH-PATHRIKE    M    39    Independent

3    M.BASAVANNA    M    30    Independent

4    S.P.MAHADEVAPPA    M    59    Independent

5    SYED NIZAM ALI    M    51    Bahujan Samaj Party

6    P.KARIGOWDA    M    63    Independent

7    P.PARASHIVAMURTHY    M    41    Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

8    ADAGURU H VISHWANATH    M    59    Indian National Congress

9    M.ANWARJI    M    62    Independent

10    ARHSADULLA SHARIFF    M    40    Bharatiya Praja Paksha

11    M.V.SANTHOSHKUMAR    M    27    Independent

12    M.S.BALAJI    M    51    Ambedkar National Congress

13    SANTHOSH KUMAR.P    M    35    Akhila India Jananayaka Makkal Katchi (Dr. Issac)

14    S.P.GEETHA    F    36    United Women Front

15    RAJU    M    54    Independent

16    B.A.JIVIJAYA    F    71    Janata Dal (Secular)

17    M.LEELAVATHI    F    51    Independent

18    RAFEEQ    M    27    Independent

19    E.RAJU    M    42    Independent

20    M.NAGENDRA    M    42    Independent

21    DR.E.KESHAMMA    F    32    Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

22    K.P.CHIDANANDA    M    48    Janata Dal (United)

23    B.D.LINGAPPARAI    M    52    Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha

S24    33    UP    UNNAO    30-Apr-09    1    SHIVSHANKERKUSHWAHA    M    46    Akhil Bharatiya Ashok Sena

2    RAMESHKUMARSINGH    M    60    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    ANNUTANDON    F    51    Indian National Congress

4    DEEPAKKUMAR    M    40    Samajwadi Party

5    SUNILKUMAR    M    35    Independent

6    RASHIDQAMAR    M    28    Muslim League Kerala State Committee

7    BASUDEVVISHARAD    M    65    Vikas Party

8    ABHICHHEDILALYADAV    M    47    Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (United)

9    RAMASHREY    M    36    Independent

10    RAJKISHORESINGH    M    36    Rashtravadi Communist Party

11    LALA    M    40    Independent

12    UMESHCHANDRA    M    25    Apna Dal

13    RAJUKASHYAP    M    40    Vanchit Jamat Party

14    RAMAOTAR    M    63    Buddhiviveki Vikas Party

15    KRISHNAPALSINGHVAIS    M    62    Independent

16    CHANDRASHEKHARTIWARI    M    43    Independent

17    ARUNSHANKARSHUKLA    M    52    Bahujan Samaj Party

18    ASHOKKUMAR    M    39    Independent

19    CHHEDILAL    M    42    Republican Party of India (A)

20    RAMSEVAK    M    44    Ambedkar Samaj Party

21    UDAISHANKERTIWARI    M    64    Independent

22    JAVEDRAZA    M    39    Janata Dal (United)

23    KAILASHNATHMISHRA    M    66    Independent

24    DRCOLPRATAPSHANKARTIWARI    M    65    Rashtriya Raksha Dal

S24    34    UP    MOHANLALGANJ    30-Apr-09    1    R.K.CHAUDHARY    M    50    Rashtriya Swabhimaan Party

2    ASHA DEVI    F    38    Bharatiya Grameen Dal

3    JAI PRAKASH    M    50    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    SUSHILA SAROJ    F    58    Samajwadi Party

5    JAIPAL PATHIK    M    50    Rashtravadi Communist Party

6    NARENDRA KUMAR    M    38    Indian National Congress

7    DINESH KUMAR    M    38    Independent

8    SATTIDEEN    M    53    Uttar Pradesh Republican Party

9    RANJAN    M    38    Bharatiya Janata Party

10    RAM DHAN    M    42    Independent

11    RAJU SONKAR    M    46    Independent

12    AMRESH KUMAR    M    27    Rashtravadi Communist Party

13    SATISH SONKAR    M    40    Dharam Nirpeksh Dal

14    BINDU DEVI    F    33    Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

15    SARJU    M    52    Independent

S24    35    UP    LUCKNOW    30-Apr-09    1    RAVI SHANKAR    M    28    Bharat Punarnirman Dal

2    SUKHVEER SINGH    M    41    Independent

3    DR. AKHILESHWAR SAHAI    M    39    Independent

4    RAVI    M    32    Vikas Party

5    AMIT PANDEY    M    33    Independent

6    RAJESH KUMAR    M    25    Independent

7    PADAM CHANDRA GUPTA    M    35    Independent

8    DR. AKHILESH DAS GUPTA    M    48    Bahujan Samaj Party

9    SEHNAAZ SIDRAT    F    48    Independent

10    NAND KUMAR    M    44    Bharatiya Grameen Dal

11    DASHARATH    M    36    Rashtriya Mazdoor Ekta Party

12    MOHD. IRSHAD    M    40    Navbharat Nirman Party

13    A. HAROON ALI    M    48    Independent

14    LAL JI TANDON    M    73    Bharatiya Janata Party

15    ANUPAM MISHRA    M    37    Swarajya Party Of India

16    ZUBAIR AHMAD    M    32    Independent

17    PRAVEEN KUMAR MISHRA    M    32    Eklavya Samaj Party

18    RISAV KUMAR SHARMA    M    28    Maulik Adhikar Party

19    BAL MUKUND TIWARI    M    26    Independent

20    S.MD.AHAMAD    M    59    Independent

21    HARJEET SINGH    M    48    Independent

22    CHANDRA BHUSHAN PANDEY    M    60    Independent

23    S.R.DARAPURI    M    65    Independent

24    RADHEYSHYAM    M    37    Independent

25    NAFISA ALI SODHI    F    52    Samajwadi Party

26    DR.KHAN MOHMAD ATIF    M    64    Muslim Majlis Uttar Pradesh

27    AMBIKA PRASAD    M    49    Independent

28    MANOJ SINGH    M    37    Independent

29    VINAY PRAKASH    M    36    Independent

30    RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY    M    40    All India Trinamool Congress

31    RAJESH KUMAR NAITHANI    M    35    Independent

32    CHATURI PRASAD    M    56    Independent

33    MURLI PRASAD    M    56    Rashtriya Kranti Party

34    ASHOK KUMAR PAL    M    31    Rashtriya Swabhimaan Party

35    SITARAM    M    38    Uttar Pradesh Republican Party

36    NITIN DWIWEDI    M    25    Independent

37    MUSTAQ KHAN    M    38    Indian Justice Party

38    RAM KUMAR SHUKLA    M    62    Independent

39    SMT. JUGUNU RANJAN    F    47    Jaganmay Nari Sangathan

40    LT.COL.(RETD.) KUSH PRASAD MATHUR    M    55    Rashtriya Raksha Dal

41    RITA BAHUGUNA JOSHI    F    59    Indian National Congress

42    RAJIV RANJAN TIWARI    M    29    Independent

43    SUMAN LATA DIXIT    F    53    Independent

44    DHEERAJ    M    37    Independent

45    AMRESH MISHRA    M    43    Independent

46    DEVENDRA    M    25    Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

47    KEDAR MAL AGRAWAL    M    55    Independent

48    AMAR SINGH YADAV    M    53    Independent

49    SAYED MOH. LADEL    M    45    Independent

50    KAMAL CHANDRA    M    39    Gondvana Gantantra Party

51    SHARAD KUMAR CHAUDHARY    M    35    Bharatiya Rashtriya Bahujan Samaj Vikas Party

52    GIRISH CHANDRA    M    62    Independent

53    C.A. RAJESH RASTOGI    M    52    Independent

54    K.C. KARDAM    M    65    Independent

55    CHAMAN BIHARI TANDON    M    66    Independent

56    LADDAN    M    49    Independent

S24    53    UP    BARABANKI    30-Apr-09    1    KAMALA PRASAD RAWAT    M    47    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    P.L.PUNIA    M    64    Indian National Congress

3    RAM NARESH RAWAT    M    44    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    RAM SAGAR    M    62    Samajwadi Party

5    VED PRAKASH RAWAT    M    29    Bahujan Samaj Party

6    JEEVAN    M    26    Janvadi Party(Socialist)

7    DESHRAJ    M    49    Bharatiya Subhash Sena

8    BABADEEN    M    49    Bharatiya Republican Paksha

9    BHAGAUTI    M    54    Apna Dal

10    SANTRAM    M    40    Navbharat Nirman Party

11    KAMLESH KUMAR    M    38    Independent

12    GAYA PRASAD    M    50    Independent

13    DEPENDRA KUMAR RAWAT    M    25    Independent

14    PREM CHANDRA ARYA    M    33    Independent

15    RAM AUTAR    M    39    Independent

16    LAJJAWATI KANCHAN    F    43    Independent

17    VISHRAM DAS    M    67    Independent

S25    1    WB    COOCH BEHAR    30-Apr-09    1    ARGHYA ROY PRODHAN    M    37    All India Trinamool Congress

2    KRISHNA KANTA BARMAN    M    29    Party for Democratic Socialism

3    NIRANJAN BARMAN    M    42    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    NRIPENDRA NATH ROY    M    49    All India Forward Bloc

5    HITENDRA DAS    M    54    Independent

6    HAREKRISHNA SARKAR    M    37    Republican Party of India

7    BANGSHI BADAN BARMAN    M    41    Independent

8    BHABENDRA NATH BARMAN    M    61    Bharatiya Janata Party

9    DALENDRA ROY    M    50    Amra Bangalee

10    NUBASH BARMAN    M    46    Independent

S25    2    WB    ALIPURDUARS    30-Apr-09    1    MANOHAR TIRKEY    M    54    Revolutionary Socialist Party

2    ELIAS NARJINARY    M    56    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    BILKAN BARA    M    62    Samajwadi Jan Parishad

4    JOUCHIM BAXLA    M    55    Independent

5    DWIPEN ORAON    M    30    Kamtapur Progressive Party

6    KAMAL LAMA    M    49    Independent

7    THADDEVS LAKRA    M    60    Independent

8    PABAN KUMAR LAKRA    M    56    All India Trinamool Congress

9    MANOJ TIGGA    M    36    Bharatiya Janata Party

10    PAUL DEXION KHARIYA    M    55    Independent

S25    3    WB    JALPAIGURI    30-Apr-09    1    MAHENDRA KUMAR ROY    M    54    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

2    PRITHWIRAJ ROY    M    36    Independent

3    SHANTI KUMAR SARKAR    M    50    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    HARIBHAKTA SARDAR    M    54    Independent

5    SATYEN PRASAD ROY    M    46    Independent

6    SUKHBILAS BARMA    M    64    Indian National Congress

7    PABITRA MOITRA    M    58    Amra Bangalee

8    DR. DHIRENDRA NATH DAS    M    47    Nationalist Congress Party

9    SRI CHINMAY SARKAR    M    30    Independent

10    SRI MUNDRIKA RAM    M    51    Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

11    SRI DWIPENDRA NATH PRAMANIK    M    37    Bharatiya Janata Party

S25    4    WB    DARJEELING    30-Apr-09    1    JASWANT SINGH    M    70    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    JIBESH SARKAR    M    55    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

3    DAWA NARBULA    M    73    Indian National Congress

4    SHANTA KUMAR SINGHA    M    40    Nationalist Congress Party

5    HARIDAS THAKUR    M    62    Bahujan Samaj Party

6    ABHIJIT MAJUMDAR    M    48    Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

7    TRILOK KUMAR DEWAN    M    63    Independent

8    NIRANJAN SAHA    M    50    Amra Bangalee

9    BAIDYANATH ROY    M    55    Indian Peoples Forward Block

10    ARUN KUMAR AGARWAL    M    48    Independent

11    NITU JAI    M    35    Independent

12    RAM GANESH BARAIK    M    44    Independent

13    HELARIUS EKKA    M    50    Independent

S25    5    WB    RAIGANJ    30-Apr-09    1    ANIL BISWAS    M    49    Independent

2    GOPESH CH. SARKAR    M    66    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    SULEMAN HAFIJI    M    51    Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)

4    MANAS JANA    M    36    Independent

5    UPENDRA NATH DAS    M    47    Independent

6    AKHIL RANJAN MONDAL    M    62    Bahujan Samaj Party

7    BIRESWAR LAHIRI    M    61    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

8    NACHHIR ALI PRAMANIK    M    64    Independent

9    ABDUL KARIM CHOUDHURY    M    62    Independent

10    DEEPA DASMUNSHI    F    48    Indian National Congress

11    MATIUR RAHMAN    M    49    Janata Dal (United)

12    FAIZ RAHAMAN    M    45    Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

S25    6    WB    BALURGHAT    30-Apr-09    1    BIPLAB MITRA    M    57    All India Trinamool Congress

2    SAMU SOREN    M    48    Independent

3    PRASANTA KUMAR MAJUMDAR    M    68    Revolutionary Socialist Party

4    GOBINDA HANSDA    M    47    Bahujan Samaj Party

5    PRAHALLAD BARMAN    M    32    Independent

6    MRIDUL GHOSH.    M    30    Assam United Democratic Front

7    SUBHASH CH. BARMAN    M    50    Bharatiya Janata Party

8    CHAMRU ORAM    M    52    Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

S25    7    WB    MALDAHA UTTAR    30-Apr-09    1    AMLAN BHADURI    M    35    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    BIKASH BISWAS    M    54    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    MAUSAM NOOR    M    27    Indian National Congress

4    SAILEN SARKAR    M    68    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

5    ATUL CHANDRA MANDAL    M    39    Independent

6    MALLIKA SARKAR (NANDY)    F    50    Independent

7    MONOWARA BEGAM    F    39    Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

8    ASIM KUMAR CHOWDHURY    M    47    Independent

9    AMINA KHATUN    F    29    Independent

S25    8    WB    MALDAHA DAKSHIN    30-Apr-09    1    ABDUR RAZZAQUE    M    60    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

2    ABU HASEM KHAN CHOUDHURY    M    65    Indian National Congress

3    BHARAT CHANDRA MANDAL    M    52    Bahujan Samaj Party

4    DIPAK KUMAR CHOWDHURY    M    47    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    MOHAMMAD EJARUDDIN    M    74    Muslim League Kerala State Committee

6    MD. KAMAL BASIRUJJAMAN    M    32    Independent

7    RUSTAM ALI    M    39    Independent

8    MANIRUDDIN SAIKH    M    64    Paschim Banga Rajya Muslim League

9    MANJUR ALAHI MUNSHI    M    42    Independent

10    SHYAMAL DAS    M    38    Independent

S25    32    WB    GHATAL    30-Apr-09    1    MATILAL KHATUA    M    55    Bharatiya Janata Party

2    NARAYAN CHANDRA SAMAT    M    60    Bahujan Samaj Party

3    GURUDAS DASGUPTA    M    73    Communist Party of India

4    NURE ALAM CHOWDHURY    M    66    All India Trinamool Congress

5    LIYAKAT KHAN    M    31    Indian Justice Party

6    ARUN KUMAR DAS    M    40    Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

7    AHITOSH MAITY    M    53    Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

S25    33    WB    JHARGRAM    30-Apr-09    1    AMRIT HASNDA    M    63    Indian National Congress

2    NABENDU MAHALI    M    34    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    ADITYA KISKU    M    46    Independent

4    PULIN BIHARI BASKE    M    40    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

5    SUSIL MANDI    M    28    Independent

6    CHUNIBALA HANSDA    M    44    Jharkhand Party

7    PANCHANAN HANSDA    M    70    Bahujan Samaj Party

8    SUNIL MURMU    M    30    Independent

9    DARKU MURMU    M    56    Independent

S25    34    WB    MEDINIPUR    30-Apr-09    1    DIPAK KUMAR GHOSH    M    72    All India Trinamool Congress

2    SANJAY MISHRA    M    49    Independent

3    PRADIP PATNAIK    M    51    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    PARTHA ADDHYA    M    32    Independent

5    SRI AMIT MAITRA    M    63    Independent

6    PRABODH PANDA    M    63    Communist Party of India

7    ASOK KUMAR GOLDER    M    64    Bahujan Samaj Party

9    SUKUMAR DE    M    54    Independent

10    JOYNAL ABEDIN SEKH    M    52    Independent

11    MUKUL KUMAR MAITY    M    33    Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

12    NEPAL CHANDRA DAS    M    60    Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

S25    35    WB    PURULIA    30-Apr-09    1    ASIT BARAN MAHATO    M    38    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    NILKAMAL MAHATO    M    69    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    RENUKA SINGH DEV    F    60    Indian National Congress

4    SHANTIRAM MAHATO    M    56    Indian National Congress

5    SAYANTAN BASU    M    32    Bharatiya Janata Party

6    NARAHARI MAHATO    M    54    All India Forward Bloc

7    AJIT PRASAD MAHATO    M    56    Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

8    ABINASH SAREN    M    39    Independent

9    ABHIRAM BESRA    M    41    Jharkhand Disom Party

10    AMULYA RATAN MAHATO    M    68    Independent

11    UMACHARAN MAHATO    M    69    Independent

12    DHIREN CHANDRA MAHATO    M    48    Independent

13    DHIREN RAJAK    M    44    Jharkhand Party (Naren)

14    BISAMBAR MURA    M    42    Independent

15    MUKHES SAHU    M    36    All Jharkhand Students Union

16    MRITYUNJAY MAHATO    M    46    Independent

S25    36    WB    BANKURA    30-Apr-09    1    BASUDEB ACHARIA    M    67    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

2    LAKSHMI SARKAR    F    54    Independent

3    SUBRATA MUKHERJEE    M    63    Indian National Congress

4    BYASDEB CHAKRABORTTY    M    37    Janata Dal (United)

5    PARESH MARANDI    M    54    Independent

6    PRABIR BANERJEE    M    36    Independent

7    SUDHIR KUMAR MURMU    M    40    Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

8    GANESH ROY    M    34    Bahujan Samaj Party

9    RAHUL (BISWAJIT) SINHA    M    45    Bharatiya Janata Party

10    ASWINI DULEY    M    51    Jharkhand Party (Naren)

11    TAPAN KUMAR PATHAK    M    27    Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

S25    37    WB    BISHNUPUR    30-Apr-09    1    SUSMITA BAURI    F    34    Communist Party of India (Marxist)

2    UMA KANTA BHAKAT    M    62    Samajwadi Janata Party (Rashtriya)

3    TAPAS DAS    M    31    Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

4    UTTAM BOURI    M    30    Independent

5    SEULI SAHA    F    39    All India Trinamool Congress

6    JAYANTA MONDAL    M    53    Bharatiya Janata Party

7    MANIK BAURI    M    43    Bahujan Samaj Party

U03    1    DN    DADAR & NAGAR HAVELI    30-Apr-09    1    DELKAR MOHANBHAI SANJIBHAI    M    46    Indian National Congress

2    PATEL SUMANBHAI THAKORBHAI    M    37    Indian National Congress

3    PATEL NATUBHAI GOMANBHAI    M    36    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    MADHA JATARIYABHAI BUDHIYABHAI    M    33    Bharatiya Janata Party

5    BIJ YOHANBHAI BHADIYABHAI    M    36    Bahujan Samaj Party

6    RAJESH PRABHUBHAI PATEL    M    38    Independent

7    MISHAL LAXMANBHAI NAVSUBHAI    M    39    Independent

8    GAVIT BARAKBHAI JAURBHAI    M    38    Independent

9    KHULAT BHIKALYABHAI VANSYABHAI    M    40    Independent

S07    2    HR    KURUKSHETRA    7-May-09    1    VISHNU BHAGWAN    M    61    Independent

S07    6    HR    SONIPAT    7-May-09    1    SHIV NARAYAN    M    45    Independent

2    JITENDER SINGH    M    40    Indian National Congress

3    JITENDER SINGH    M    40    Indian National Congress

S19    10    PB    FEROZPUR    7-May-09    1    MATHRA DASS    M    73    Proutist Sarva Samaj

S19    11    PB    BATHINDA    7-May-09    1    HARDEV SINGH ARSHI    M    59    Communist Party of India

2    HARDEV SINGH ARSHI    M    59    Communist Party of India

S19    12    PB    SANGRUR    7-May-09    1    TARSEM JODHAN    M    59    Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

S20    3    RJ    CHURU    7-May-09    1    SALIM GUJAR    M    39    Independent

2    RAM SINGH KASWAN    M    63    Bharatiya Janata Party

3    KAMALA KASWAN    F    63    Bharatiya Janata Party

4    YUSUF KHAN    M    46    Independent

S20    15    RJ    PALI    7-May-09    1    PUSP JAIN    M    52    Bharatiya Janata Party

S20    18    RJ    JALORE    7-May-09    1    SUKHRAJ    M    66    Independent

2    SHANTI PARMAR    F    48    Independent

S20    23    RJ    BHILWARA    7-May-09    1    VIJAYENDRA PAL SINGH    M    61    Bharatiya Janata Party

S24    15    UP    ALIGARH    7-May-09    1    RAJ KUMARI CHAUHAN    F    46    Bahujan Samaj Party

S24    17    UP    MATHURA    7-May-09    1    UDYAN SHARMA    M    42    Samajwadi Party

2    PHAKKAD BABA    M    64    Independent

S24    40    UP    FARRUKHABAD    7-May-09    1    SWAMI SACHIDANAND HARI SAKSHI    M    53    Rashtriya Kranti Party

S24    42    UP    KANNAUJ    7-May-09    1    MAHESH CHANDRA    M    53    Bahujan Samaj Party

2    AKHILESH YADAV    M    35    Samajwadi Party

S25    27    WB    SRERAMPUR    7-May-09    1    KALYAN BANERJEE    M    52    All India Trinamool Congress

A toast to each and all of you in your endeavours in these hot summer months and Jai Hind.

Subroto Roy, Kolkata

Postscript:  I shall be grateful if any inadvertent errors or ommissions are kindly brought to notice by sending in a  comment on the post.  Thanks in advance.

Alfred Lyall on Christians, Muslims, India, China, Etc, 1908

“THE STATE IN ITS RELATION TO EASTERN AND WESTERN RELIGIONS”

By Sir Alfred Comyn Lyall (1835-1911)

Delivered as President of the Congress for the History of Religions, September 1908.—Fortnightly Review, November 1908.

“In considering the subject of my address, I have been confronted by this difficulty—that in the sections which regulate the order of our proceedings, we have a list of papers that range over all the principal religions, ancient and modern, that have existed and still exist in the world. They are to be treated and discussed by experts whose scholarship, particular studies, and close research entitle them all to address you authoritatively. I have no such special qualifications; and in any case it would be most presumptuous in me to trespass upon their ground. All that I can venture to do, therefore, in the remarks which I propose to address to you to-day, is to attempt a brief general survey of the history of religions from a standpoint which may possibly not fall within the scope of these separate papers.

The four great religions now prevailing in the world, which are historical in the sense that they have been long known to history, I take to be—Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism. Having regard to their origin and derivation, to their history and character, I may be permitted, for my present purpose only, to class the two former as the Religions of the West, and the two latter as the Religions of the East. These are the faiths which still maintain a mighty influence over the minds of mankind. And my object is to compare the political relations, the attitude, maintained toward them, from time to time, by the States and rulers of the people over which these religions have established their spiritual dominion.

The religion of the Jews is not included, though its influence has been incalculable, because it has been caught up, so to speak, into Christianity and Islam, and cannot therefore be counted among those which have made a partition of the religious world. For this reason, perhaps, it has retained to this day its ancient denomination, derived from the tribe or country of its origin; whereas the others are named from a Faith or a Founder. The word Nazarene, denoting the birthplace of Christianity, which is said to be still used in that region, was, as we know, very speedily superseded by its wider title, as the Creed broke out of local limits and was proclaimed universal. There has evidently been a foretime, though it is prehistorical, when, so far as we know, mankind was universally polytheistic; when innumerable rites and worships prevailed without restraint, springing up and contending with each other like the trees in a primeval forest, reflecting a primitive and precarious condition of human society.

I take polytheism to have been, in this earliest stage, the wild growth of superstitious imagination, varied indefinitely by the pressure of circumstance, by accident, by popular caprice, or by the good or evil fortunes of the community. In this stage it can now be seen among barbarous tribes—as, for instance, in Central Africa. And some traces of it still survive, under different pretexts and disguises, in the lowest strata of civilised nations, where it may be said to represent the natural reluctance of the vagrant human fancy to be satisfied with higher forms and purer conceptions that are always imperfectly assimilated by the multitude. Among primitive societies the spheres of human and divine affairs were intermixed and identical; they could not be disentangled. But with the growth of political institutions came gradual separation, or at any rate the subordination of religion to the practical necessities of orderly government and public morals.

That polytheism can exist and flourish in the midst of a highly intellectual and civilised society, we know from the history of Greece and Rome. But in ancient Greece its direct influence upon political affairs seems to have been slight; though it touched at some points upon morality. The function of the State, according to Greek ideas, was to legislate for all the departments of human life and to uphold the moral standard. The law prohibited sacrilege and profanity; it punished open impiety that might bring down divine wrath upon the people at large. The philosophers taught rational ethics; they regarded the popular superstitions with indulgent contempt; but they inculcated the duty of honouring the gods, and the observance of public ceremonial. Beyond these limits the practice of local and customary worship was, I think, free and unrestrained; though I need hardly add that toleration, as understood by the States of antiquity, was a very different thing from the modern principle of religious neutrality. Under the Roman government the connection between the State and religion was much closer, as the dominion of Rome expanded and its power became centralised. The Roman State maintained a strict control and superintendence over the official rituals and worships, which were regulated as a department of the administration, to bind the people together by established rites and worships, in order to cement political and social unity. It is true that the usages of the tribes and principalities that were conquered and annexed were left undisturbed; for the Roman policy, like that of the English in India, was to avoid giving offence to religion; and undoubtedly this policy, in both instances, materially facilitated the rapid building up of a wide dominion. Nevertheless, there was a tendency to draw in the worship toward a common centre. The deities of the conquered provinces were respected and conciliated; the Roman generals even appealed to them for protection and favour, yet they became absorbed and assimilated under Roman names; they were often identified with the gods of the Roman pantheon, and were frequently superseded by the victorious divinities of the new rulers—the strange deities, in fact, were Romanised as well as the foreign tribes and cities. After this manner the Roman empire combined the tolerance of great religious diversity with the supremacy of a centralised government. Political amalgamation brought about a fusion of divine attributes; and latterly the emperor was adored as the symbol of manifest power, ruler and pontiff; he was the visible image of supreme authority. This régime was easily accepted by the simple unsophisticated paganism of Europe. The Romans, with all their statecraft, had as yet no experience of a high religious temperature, of enthusiastic devotion and divine mysteries. But as their conquest and commerce spread eastward, the invasion of Asia let in upon Europe a flood of Oriental divinities, and thus Rome came into contact with much stronger and deeper spiritual forces. The European polytheism might be utilised and administered, the Asiatic deities could not be domesticated and subjected to regulation; the Oriental orgies and strange rites broke in upon the organised State worship; the new ideas and practices came backed by a profound and fervid spiritualism. Nevertheless the Roman policy of bringing religion under authoritative control was more or less successful even in the Asiatic provinces of the empire; the privileges of the temples were restricted; the priesthoods were placed under the general superintendence of the proconsular officials; and Roman divinities gradually found their way into the Asiatic pantheon. But we all know that the religion of the Roman empire was falling into multitudinous confusion when Christianity arose—an austere exclusive faith, with its army of saints, ascetics, and unflinching martyrs, proclaiming worship to be due to one God only, and sternly refusing to acknowledge the divinity of the emperor. Against such a faith an incoherent disorderly polytheism could make no better stand than tribal levies against a disciplined army. The new religion struck directly at the sacrifices that symbolised imperial unity; the passive resistance of Christians was necessarily treated as rebellion, the State made implacable war upon them. Yet the spiritual and moral forces won the victory, and Christianity established itself throughout the empire. Universal religion, following upon universal civil dominion, completed the levelling of local and national distinctions. The Churches rapidly grew into authority superior to the State within their own jurisdiction; they called in the temporal government to enforce theological decisions and to put down heresies; they founded a powerful hierarchy. The earlier Roman constitution had made religion an instrument of administration. When one religion became universal, the churches enlisted the civil ruler into the service of orthodoxy; they converted the State into an instrument for enforcing religion. The pagan empire had issued edicts against Christianity and had suppressed Christian assemblies as tainted with disaffection; the Christian emperors enacted laws against the rites and worships of paganism, and closed temples. It was by the supreme authority of Constantine that, for the first time in the religious history of the world, uniformity of belief was defined by a creed, and sanctioned by the ruler’s assent.

Then came, in Western Europe, the time when the empire at Rome was rent asunder by the inrush of barbarians; but upon its ruins was erected the great Catholic Church of the Papacy, which preserved in the ecclesiastical domain the autocratic imperial tradition. The primacy of the Roman Church, according to Harnack, is essentially the transference to her of Rome’s central position in the religions of the heathen world; the Church united the western races, disunited politically, under the common denomination of Christianity. Yet Christianity had not long established itself throughout all the lands, in Europe and Asia, which had once been under the Roman sovereignty, when the violent irruptions of Islam upset not only the temporal but also the spiritual dominion throughout Western Asia, and along the southern shores of the Mediterranean. The Eastern empire at Constantinople had been weakened by bitter theological dissensions and heresies among the Christians; the votaries of the new, simple, unswerving faith of Mohammed were ardent and unanimous.

In Egypt and Syria the Mohammedans were speedily victorious; the Latin Church and even the Latin language were swept out of North Africa. In Persia the Sassanian dynasty was overthrown, and although there was no immediate and total conversion of the people, Mohammedanism gradually superseded the ancient Zoroastrian cultus as the religion of the Persian State. It was not long before the armies of Islam had triumphed from the Atlantic coast to the Jaxartes river in Central Asia; and conversion followed, speedily or slowly, as the direct result of conquest. Moreover, the Mohammedans invaded Europe. In the south-west they subdued almost all Spain; and in the south-east they destroyed, some centuries later, the Greek empire, though not the Greek Church, and consolidated a mighty rulership at Constantinople. With this prolonged conflict between Islam and Christianity along the borderlands of Europe and Asia began the era of those religious wars that have darkened the history of the Western nations, and have perpetuated the inveterate antipathy between Asiatic and European races, which the spread of Christianity into both continents had softened and might have healed. In the end Christianity has fixed itself permanently in Europe, while Islam is strongly established throughout half Asia. But the sharp collision between the two faiths, the clash of armies bearing the cross and the crescent, generated fierce fanaticism on both sides. The Crusades kindled a fiery militant and missionary spirit previously unknown to religions, whereby religious propagation became the mainspring and declared object of conquest and colonisation.

Finally, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the great secession from the Roman Church divided the nations of Western Europe into hostile camps, and throughout the long wars of that period political jealousies and ambitions were inflamed by religious animosities. In Eastern Europe the Greek Church fell under almost complete subordination to the State. The history of Europe and Western Asia records, therefore, a close connection and community of interests between the States and the orthodox faiths; a combination which has had a very potent influence, during many centuries, upon the course of civil affairs, upon the fortunes, or misfortunes, of nations.

Up to the sixteenth century, at least, it was universally held, by Christianity and by Islam, that the State was bound to enforce orthodoxy; conversion and the suppression or expulsion of heretics were public duties. Unity of creed was thought necessary for national unity—a government could not undertake to maintain authority, or preserve the allegiance of its subjects, in a realm divided and distracted by sectarian controversies. On these principles Christianity and Islam were consolidated, in union with the States or in close alliance with them; and the geographical boundaries of these two faiths, and of their internal divisions respectively, have not materially changed up to the present day.

Let me now turn to the history of religion in those countries of further Asia, which were never reached by Greek or Roman conquest or civilisation, where the ancient forms of worship and conceptions of divinity, which existed before Christianity and Islam, still flourish. And here I shall only deal with the relations of the State to religion in India and China and their dependencies, because these vast and populous empires contain the two great religions, Hinduism and Buddhism, of purely Asiatic origin and character, which have assimilated to a large extent, and in a certain degree elevated, the indigenous polytheism, and which still exercise a mighty influence over the spiritual and moral condition of many millions. We know what a tremendous power religion has been in the wars and politics of the West. I submit that in Eastern Asia, beyond the pale of Islam, the history of religion has been very different. Religious wars—I mean wars caused by the conflict of militant faiths contending for superiority—were, I believe, unknown on any great scale to the ancient civilisations. It seems to me that until Islam invaded India the great religious movements and changes in that region had seldom or never been the consequence of, nor had been materially affected by, wars, conquests, or political revolutions. Throughout Europe and Mohammedan Asia the indigenous deities and their temples have disappeared centuries ago; they have been swept away by the forces of Church and State combined to exterminate them; they have all yielded to the lofty overruling ideal of monotheism.

But the tide of Mohammedanism reached its limit in India; the people, though conquered, were but partly converted, and eastward of India there have been no important Mohammedan rulerships. On this side of Asia, therefore, two great religions, Buddhism and Brahmanism, have held their ground from times far anterior to Christianity; they have retained the elastic comprehensive character of polytheism, purified and elevated by higher conceptions, developed by the persistent competition of diverse ideas and forms among the people, unrestrained by attempts of superior organised faiths to obliterate the lower and weaker species. In that region political despotism has prevailed immemorially; religious despotism, in the sense of the legal establishment of one faith or worship to the exclusion of all others, of uniformity imposed by coercion, of proselytism by persecution, is unknown to history: the governments have been absolute and personal; the religions have been popular and democratic. They have never been identified so closely with the ruling power as to share its fortunes, or to be used for the consolidation of successful conquest. Nor, on the other hand, has a ruler ever found it necessary, for the security of his throne, to conform to the religion of his subjects, and to abjure all others. The political maxim, that the sovereign and his subjects should be of one and the same religion, ‘Cujus regio ejus religio’, has never prevailed in this part of the world.

And although in India, the land of their common origin, Buddhism widely displaced and overlaid Brahmanism, while it was in its turn, after several centuries, overcome and ejected by a Brahmanic revival, yet I believe that history records no violent contests or collisions between them; nor do we know that the armed force of the State played any decisive part in these spiritual revolutions. I do not maintain that Buddhism has owed nothing to State influence. It represents certain doctrines of the ancient Indian theosophy, incarnate, as one might say, in the figure of a spiritual Master, the Indian prince, Sakya Gautama, who was the type and example of ascetic quietism; it embodies the idea of salvation, or emancipation attainable by man’s own efforts, without aid from priests or divinities. Buddhism is the earliest, by many centuries, of the faiths that claim descent from a personal founder. It emerges into authentic history with the empire of Asoka, who ruled over the greater part of India some 250 years before Christ, and its propagation over his realm and the countries adjacent is undoubtedly due to the influence, example, and authority of that devout monarch.

According to Mr. Vincent Smith, from whose valuable work on the Early History of India I take the description of Asoka’s religious policy, the king, renouncing after one necessary war all further military conquest, made it the business of his life to employ his autocratic power in directing the preaching and teaching of the Law of Piety, which he had learnt from his Buddhist priesthood. All his high officers were commanded to instruct the people in the way of salvation; he sent missions to foreign countries; he issued edicts promulgating ethical doctrines, and the rules of a devout life; he made pilgrimages to the sacred places; and finally he assumed the yellow robe of a Buddhist monk.

Asoka elevated, so Mr. Smith has said, a sect of Hinduism to the rank of a world-religion. Nevertheless, I think it may be affirmed that the emperor consistently refrained from the forcible conversion of his subjects, and indeed the use of compulsion would have apparently been a breach of his own edicts, which insist on the principle of toleration, and declare the propagation of the Law of Piety to be his sole object. Asoka made no attempt to persecute Brahmanism; and it seems clear that the extraordinary success of Buddhism in India cannot be attributed to war or to conquest. To imperial influence and example much must be ascribed, yet I think Buddhism owed much more to its spiritual potency, to its superior faculty of transmuting and assimilating, instead of abolishing, the elementary instincts and worships, endowing them with a higher significance, attracting and stimulating devotion by impressive rites and ceremonies, impressing upon the people the dogma of the soul’s transmigration and its escape from the miseries of sentient existence by the operation of merits. And of all great religions it is the least political, for the practice of asceticism and quietism, of monastic seclusion from the working world, is necessarily adverse to any active connection with mundane affairs.

I do not know that the mysterious disappearance of Buddhism from India can be accounted for by any great political revolution, like that which brought Islam into India. It seems to have vanished before the Mohammedans had gained any footing in the country.

Meanwhile Buddhism is said to have penetrated into the Chinese empire by the first century of the Christian era. Before that time the doctrines of Confucius and Laotze were the dominant philosophies; rather moral than religious, though ancestral worship and the propitiation of spirits were not disallowed, and were to a certain extent enjoined. Laotze, the apostle of Taoism, appears to have preached a kind of Stoicism—the observance of the order of Nature in searching for the right way of salvation, the abhorrence of vicious sensuality—and the cultivation of humility, self-sacrifice, and simplicity of life. He condemned altogether the use of force in the sphere of religion or morality; though he admitted that it might be necessary for the purposes of civil government. The system of Confucius inculcated justice, benevolence, self-control, obedience and loyalty to the sovereign—all the civic virtues; it was a moral code without a metaphysical background; the popular worships were tolerated, reverence for ancestors conduced to edification; the gods were to be honoured, though it was well to keep aloof from them; he disliked religious fervour, and of things beyond experience he had nothing to say.

Buddhism, with its contempt for temporal affairs, treating life as a mere burden, and the soul’s liberation from existence as the end and object of meditative devotion, must have imported a new and disturbing element into the utilitarian philosophies of ancient China. For many centuries Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism are said to have contended for the patronage and recognition of the Chinese emperors. Buddhism was alternately persecuted and protected, expelled and restored by imperial decree. Priesthoods and monastic orders are institutions of which governments are naturally jealous; the monasteries were destroyed or rebuilt, sacerdotal orders and celibacy suppressed or encouraged by imperial decrees, according to the views and prepossessions of successive dynasties or emperors. Nevertheless the general policy of Chinese rulers and ministers seems not to have varied essentially. Their administrative principle was that religion must be prevented from interfering with affairs of State, that abuses and superstitious extravagances are not so much offences against orthodoxy as matters for the police, and as such must be put down by the secular arm. Upon this policy successive dynasties appear to have acted continuously up to the present day in China, where the relations of the State to religions are, I think, without parallel elsewhere in the modern world. One may find some resemblance to the attitude of the Roman emperors towards rites and worships among the population, in the Chinese emperor’s reverent observance and regulation of the rites and ceremonies performed by him as the religious chief and representative before Heaven of the great national interests. The deification of deceased emperors is a solemn rite ordained by proclamation. As the Ius sacrum, the body of rights and duties in the matter of religion, was regarded in Rome as a department of the Ius publicum, belonging to the fundamental constitution of the State, so in China the ritual code was incorporated into the statute books, and promulgated with imperial sanction. Now we know that in Rome the established ritual was legally prescribed, though otherwise strange deities and their worships were admitted indiscriminately. But the Chinese Government goes much further. It appears to regard all novel superstitions, and especially foreign worships, as the hotbed of sedition and disloyalty. Unlicensed deities and sects are put down by the police; magicians and sorcerers are arrested; and the peculiar Chinese practice of canonising deceased officials and paying sacrificial honours to local celebrities after death is strictly reserved by the Board of Ceremonies for imperial consideration and approval. The Censor, to whom any proposal of this kind must be entrusted, is admonished that he must satisfy himself by inquiry of its validity. An official who performs sacred rites in honour of a spirit or holy personage not recognised by the Ritual Code, was liable, under laws that may be still in force, to corporal punishment; and the adoration by private families of spirits whose worship is reserved for public ceremonial was a heinous offence. No such rigorous control over the multiplication of rites and deities has been instituted elsewhere. On the other hand, while in other countries the State has recognised no more than one established religion, the Chinese Government formally recognises three denominations. Buddhism has been sanctioned by various edicts and endowments, yet the State divinities belong to the Taoist pantheon, and their worship is regulated by public ordinances; while Confucianism represents official orthodoxy, and its precepts embody the latitudinarian spirit of the intellectual classes. We know that the Chinese people make use, so to speak, of all three religions indiscriminately, according to their individual whims, needs, or experience of results. So also a politic administration countenances these divisions and probably finds some interest in maintaining them. The morality of the people requires some religious sanction; and it is this element with which the State professes its chief concern. We are told on good authority that one of the functions of high officials is to deliver public lectures freely criticising and discouraging indolent monasticism and idolatry from the standpoint of rational ethics, as follies that are reluctantly tolerated. Yet the Government has never been able to keep down the fanatics, mystics, and heretical sects that are incessantly springing up in China, as elsewhere in Asia; though they are treated as pestilent rebels and law-breakers, to be exterminated by massacre and cruel punishments; and bloody repression of this kind has been the cause of serious insurrections. It is to be observed that all religious persecution is by the direct action of the State, not instigated or insisted upon by a powerful orthodox priesthood. But a despotic administration which undertakes to control and circumscribe all forms and manifestations of superstition in a vast polytheistic multitude of its subjects, is inevitably driven to repressive measures of the utmost severity. Neither Christianity nor Islam attempted to regulate polytheism, their mission was to exterminate it, and they succeeded mainly because in those countries the State was acting with the support and under the uncompromising pressure of a dominant church or faith. Some writers have noticed a certain degree of resemblance between the policy of the Roman empire and that of the Chinese empire toward religion. We may read in Gibbon that the Roman magistrates regarded the various modes of worship as equally useful, that sages and heroes were exalted to immortality and entitled to reverence and adoration, and that philosophic officials, viewing with indulgence the superstitions of the multitude, diligently practised the ceremonies of their fathers. So far, indeed, his description of the attitude of the State toward polytheism may be applicable to China; but although the Roman and Chinese emperors both assumed the rank of divinity, and were supreme in the department of worships, the Roman administration never attempted to regulate and restrain polytheism at large on the Chinese system. The religion of the Gentiles, said Hobbes, is a part of their policy; and it may be said that this is still the policy of Oriental monarchies, who admit no separation between the secular and the ecclesiastic jurisdiction. They would agree with Hobbes that temporal and spiritual government are but two words brought into the world to make men see double and mistake their lawful sovereign. But while in Mohammedan Asia the State upholds orthodox uniformity, in China and Japan the mainspring of all such administrative action is political expediency. It may be suggested that in the mind of these far-Eastern people religion has never been conceived as something quite apart from human experience and the affairs of the visible world; for Buddhism, with its metaphysical doctrines, is a foreign importation, corrupted and materialised in China and Japan. And we may observe that from among the Mongolian races, which have produced mighty conquerors and founded famous dynasties from Constantinople to Pekin, no mighty prophet, no profound spiritual teacher, has arisen. Yet in China, as throughout all the countries of the Asiatic mainland, an enthusiast may still gather together ardent proselytes, and fresh revelations may create among the people unrest that may ferment and become heated up to the degree of fanaticism, and explode against attempts made to suppress it. The Taeping insurrection, which devastated cities and provinces in China, and nearly overthrew the Manchu dynasty, is a striking example of the volcanic fires that underlie the surface of Asiatic societies. It was quenched in torrents of blood after lasting some ten years. And very recently there has been a determined revolt of the Lamas in Eastern Tibet, where the provincial administration is, as we know, sacerdotal.

The imperial troops are said to be crushing it with unrelenting severity. These are the perilous experiences of a philosophic Government that assumes charge and control over the religions of some three hundred millions of Asiatics.

I can only make a hasty reference to Japan. In that country the relations of the State to religions appear to have followed the Chinese model. Buddhism, Confucianism, Shintoism, are impartially recognised. The emperor presides over official worship as high priest of his people; the liturgical ordinances are issued by imperial rescripts not differing in form from other public edicts. The dominant article of faith is the divinity of Japan and its emperor; and Shinto, the worship of the gods of nature, is understood to be patronised chiefly with the motive of preserving the national traditions. But in Japan the advance of modern science and enlightened scepticism may have diminished the importance of the religious department. Shinto, says a recent writer, still embodies the religion of the people; yet in 1877 a decree was issued declaring it to be no more than a convenient system of State ceremonial.[ The Development of Religion in Japan, G. W. Knox, 1907] And in 1889 an article of the constitution granted freedom of belief and worship to all Japanese subjects, without prejudice to peace, order, and loyalty.

In India the religious situation is quite different. I think it is without parallel elsewhere in the world. Here we are at the fountainhead of metaphysical theology, of ideas that have flowed eastward and westward across Asia. And here, also, we find every species of primitive polytheism, unlimited and multitudinous; we can survey a confused medley of divinities, of rites and worships incessantly varied by popular whim and fancy, by accidents, and by the pressure of changing circumstances. Hinduism permits any doctrine to be taught, any sort of theory to be held regarding the divine attributes and manifestations, the forces of nature, or the mysterious functions of mind or body. Its tenets have never been circumscribed by a creed; its free play has never been checked or regulated by State authority. Now, at first sight, this is not unlike the popular polytheism of the ancient world, before the triumph of Christianity. There are passages in St. Augustine’s Civitas Dei, describing the worship of the unconverted pagans among whom he lived, that might have been written yesterday by a Christian bishop in India. And we might ask why all this polytheism was not swept out from among such a highly intellectual people as the Indians, with their restless pursuit of divine knowledge, by some superior faith, by some central idea. Undoubtedly the material and moral conditions, and the course of events which combine to stamp a particular form of religion upon any great people, are complex and manifold; but into this inquiry I cannot go. I can only point out that the institution of caste has riveted down Hindu society into innumerable divisions upon a general religious basis, and that the sacred books separated the Hindu theologians into different schools, preventing uniformity of worship or of creed. And it is to be observed that these books are not historical; they give no account of the rise and spread of a faith. The Hindu theologian would say, in the words of an early Christian father, that the objects of divine knowledge are not historical, that they can only be apprehended intellectually, that within experience there is no reality. And the fact that Brahmanism has no authentic inspired narrative, that it is the only great religion not concentrated round the life and teachings of a person, may be one reason why it has remained diffuse and incoherent. All ways of salvation are still open to the Hindus; the canon of their scripture has never been authoritatively closed. New doctrines, new sects, fresh theological controversies, are incessantly modifying and superseding the old scholastic interpretations of the mysteries, for Hindus, like Asiatics everywhere, are still in that condition of mind when a fresh spiritual message is eagerly received. Vishnu and Siva are the realistic abstractions of the understanding from objects of sense, from observation of the destructive and reproductive operations of nature; they represent among educated men separate systems of worship which, again, are parted into different schools or theories regarding the proper ways and methods of attaining to spiritual emancipation. Yet the higher philosophy and the lower polytheism are not mutually antagonistic; on the contrary, they support each other; for Brahmanism accepts and allies itself with the popular forms of idolatry, treating them as outward visible signs of an inner truth, as indications of all-pervading pantheism. The peasant and the philosopher reverence the same deity, perform the same rite; they do not mean the same thing, but they do not quarrel on this account. Nevertheless, it is certainly remarkable that this inorganic medley of ideas and worships should have resisted for so many ages the invasion and influence of the coherent faiths that have won ascendancy, complete or dominant, on either side of India, the west and the east; it has thrown off Buddhism, it has withstood the triumphant advance of Islam, it has as yet been little affected by Christianity. Probably the political history of India may account in some degree for its religious disorganisation. I may propound the theory that no religion has obtained supremacy, or at any rate definite establishment, in any great country except with the active co-operation, by force or favour, of the rulers, whether by conquest, as in Western Asia, or by patronage and protection, as in China. The direct influence and recognition of the State has been an indispensable instrument of religious consolidation. But until the nineteenth century the whole of India, from the mountains to the sea, had never been united under one stable government; the country was for ages parcelled out into separate principalities, incessantly contending for territory. And even the Moghul empire, which was always at war upon its frontiers, never acquired universal dominion. The Moghul emperors, except Aurungzeb, were by no means bigoted Mohammedans; and their obvious interest was to abstain from meddling with Hinduism. Yet the irruption of Islam into India seems rather to have stimulated religious activity among the Hindus, for during the Mohammedan period various spiritual teachers arose, new sects were formed, and theological controversies divided the intellectual classes. To these movements the Mohammedan governments must have been for a long time indifferent; and among the new sects the principle of mutual toleration was universal. Towards the close of the Moghul empire, however, Hinduism, provoked by the bigotry of the Emperor Aurungzeb, became a serious element of political disturbance. Attempts to suppress forcibly the followers of Nanak Guru, and the execution of one spiritual leader of the Sikhs, turned the Sikhs from inoffensive quietists into fanatical warriors; and by the eighteenth century they were in open revolt against the empire. They were, I think, the most formidable embodiment of militant Hinduism known to Indian history. By that time, also, the Marathas in South-West India were declaring themselves the champions of the Hindu religion against the Mohammedan oppression; and to the Sikhs and Marathas the dislocation of the Moghul empire may be very largely attributed. We have here a notable example of the dynamic power upon politics of revolts that are generated by religious fermentation, and a proof of the strength that can be exerted by a pacific inorganic polytheism in self-defence, when ambitious rebels proclaim themselves defenders of a faith. The Marathas and the Sikhs founded the only rulerships whose armies could give the English serious trouble in the field during the nineteenth century. On the whole, however, when we survey the history of India, and compare it with that of Western Asia, we may say that although the Hindus are perhaps the most intensely religious people in the world, Hinduism has never been, like Christianity, Islam, and to some extent Buddhism, a religion established by the State. Nor has it suffered much from the State’s power. It seems strange, indeed, that Mohammedanism, a compact proselytising faith, closely united with the civil rulership, should have so slightly modified, during seven centuries of dominion, this infinitely divided polytheism. Of course, Mohammedanism made many converts, and annexed a considerable number of the population—yet the effect was rather to stiffen than to loosen the bonds that held the mass of the people to their traditional divinities, and to the institution of castes. Moreover the antagonism of the two religions, the popular and the dynastic, was a perpetual element of weakness in a Mohammedan empire. In India polytheism could not be crushed, as in Western Asia, by Islam; neither could it be controlled and administered, as in Eastern Asia; yet the Moghul emperors managed to keep on good terms with it, so long as they adhered to a policy of toleration. To the Mohammedan empire has succeeded another foreign dominion, which practises not merely tolerance but complete religious neutrality.

Looking back over the period of a hundred years, from 1757 to 1857, during which the British dominion was gradually extended over India, we find that the British empire, like the Roman, met with little or no opposition from religion. Hindus and Mohammedans, divided against each other, were equally willing to form alliances with, and to fight on the side of, the foreigner who kept religion entirely outside politics. And the British Government, when established, has so carefully avoided offence to caste or creed that on one great occasion only, the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857, have the smouldering fires of credulous fanaticism broken out against our rule. I believe the British-Indian position of complete religious neutrality to be unique among Asiatic governments, and almost unknown in Europe. The Anglo-Indian sovereignty does not identify itself with the interests of a single faith, as in Mohammedan kingdoms, nor does it recognise a definite ecclesiastical jurisdiction in things spiritual, as in Catholic Europe. Still less has our Government adopted the Chinese system of placing the State at the head of different rituals for the purpose of controlling them all, and proclaiming an ethical code to be binding on all denominations. The British ruler, while avowedly Christian, ignores all religions administratively, interfering only to suppress barbarous or indecent practices when the advance of civilisation has rendered them obsolete. Public instruction, so far as the State is concerned, is entirely secular; the universal law is the only authorised guardian of morals; to expound moral duties officially, as things apart from religion, has been found possible in China, but not in India. But the Chinese Government can issue edicts enjoining public morality and rationalism because the State takes part in the authorised worship of the people, and the emperor assumes pontifical office. The British Government in India, on the other hand, disowns official connection with any religion. It places all its measures on the sole ground of reasonable expediency, of efficient administration; it seeks to promote industry and commerce, and material civilisation generally; it carefully avoids giving any religious colour whatever to its public acts; and the result is that our Government, notwithstanding its sincere professions of absolute neutrality, is sometimes suspected of regarding all religion with cynical indifference, possibly even with hostility. Moreover, religious neutrality, though it is right, just, and the only policy which the English in India could possibly adopt, has certain political disadvantages. The two most potent influences which still unite and divide the Asiatic peoples, are race and religion; a Government which represents both these forces, as, for instance, in Afghanistan, has deep roots in a country. A dynasty that can rely on the support of an organised religion, and stands forth as the champion of a dominant faith, has a powerful political power at its command. The Turkish empire, weak, ill-governed, repeatedly threatened with dismemberment, embarrassed internally by the conflict of races, has been preserved for the last hundred years by its incorporation with the faith of Islam, by the Sultan’s claim to the Caliphate. To attack it is to assault a religious citadel; it is the bulwark on the west of Mohammedan Asia, as Afghanistan is the frontier fortress of Islam on the east. A leading Turkish politician has very recently said: ‘It is in Islam pure and simple that lies the strength of Turkey as an independent State; and if the Sultan’s position as religious chief were encroached upon by constitutional reforms, the whole Ottoman empire would be in danger.’ We have to remember that for ages religious enthusiasm has been, and still is in some parts of Asia, one of the strongest incentives to military ardour and fidelity to a standard on the battlefield. Identity of creed has often proved more effective, in war, than territorial patriotism; it has surmounted racial and tribal antipathies; while religious antagonism is still in many countries a standing impediment to political consolidation. When, therefore, we survey the history of religions, though this sketch is necessarily very imperfect and inadequate, we find Mohammedanism still identified with the fortunes of Mohammedan rulers; and we know that for many centuries the relations of Christianity to European States have been very close. In Europe the ardent perseverance and intellectual superiority of great theologians, of ecclesiastical statesmen supported by autocratic rulers, have hardened and beat out into form doctrines and liturgies that it was at one time criminal to disregard or deny, dogmatic articles of faith that were enforced by law. By these processes orthodoxy emerged compact, sharply defined, irresistible, out of the strife and confusion of heresies; the early record of the churches has pages spotted with tears and stained with blood. But at the present time European States seem inclined to dissolve their alliance with the churches, and to arrange a kind of judicial separation between the altar and the throne, though in very few cases has a divorce been made absolute. No State, in civilised countries, now assists in the propagation of doctrine; and ecclesiastical influence is of very little service to a Government. The civil law, indeed, makes continual encroachments on the ecclesiastical domain, questions its authority, and usurps its jurisdiction. Modern erudition criticises the historical authenticity of the scriptures, philosophy tries to undermine the foundations of belief; the governments find small interest in propping up edifices that are shaken by internal controversies. In Mohammedan Asia, on the other hand, the connection between the orthodox faith and the States is firmly maintained, for the solidarity is so close that disruptions would be dangerous, and a Mohammedan rulership over a majority of unbelievers would still be perilously unstable. I have thus endeavoured to show that the historical relations of Buddhism and Hinduism to the State have been in the past, and are still in the present time, very different from the situation in the West. There has always existed, I submit, one essential distinction of principle. Religious propagation, forcible conversion, aided and abetted by the executive power of the State, and by laws against heresy or dissent, have been defended in the West by the doctors of Islam, and formerly by Christian theologians, by the axiom that all means are justifiable for extirpating false teachers who draw souls to perdition. The right and duty of the civil magistrate to maintain truth, in regard to which Bossuet declared all Christians to be unanimous, and which is still affirmed in the Litany of our Church, is a principle from which no Government, three centuries ago, dissented in theory, though in practice it needed cautious handling. I do not think that this principle ever found its way into Hinduism or Buddhism; I doubt, that is to say, whether the civil government was at any time called in to undertake or assist propagation of those religions as part of its duty. Nor do I know that the States of Eastern Asia, beyond the pale of Islam, claim or exercise the right of insisting on conformance to particular doctrines, because they are true. The erratic manifestations of the religious spirit throughout Asia, constantly breaking out in various forms and figures, in thaumaturgy, mystical inspiration, in orgies and secret societies, have always disquieted these Asiatic States, yet, so far as I can ascertain, the employment of force to repress them has always been justified on administrative or political grounds, as distinguishable from theological motives pure and simple. Sceptics and agnostics have been often marked out for persecution in the West, but I do not think that they have been molested in India, China, or Japan, where they abound, because they seldom meddle with politics.[ ‘Atheism did never disturb States’ (Bacon)]. It may perhaps be admitted, however, that a Government which undertakes to regulate impartially all rites and worship among its subjects is at a disadvantage by comparison with a Government that acts as the representative of a great church or an exclusive faith. It bears the sole undivided responsibility for measures of repression; it cannot allege divine command or even the obligation of punishing impiety for the public good. To conclude. In Asiatic States the superintendence of religious affairs is an integral attribute of the sovereignty, which no Government, except the English in India, has yet ventured to relinquish; and even in India this is not done without some risk, for religion and politics are still intermingled throughout the world; they act and react upon each other everywhere. They are still far from being disentangled in our own country, where the theory that a Government in its collective character must profess and even propagate some religion has not been very long obsolete. It was maintained seventy years ago by a great statesman who was already rising into prominence, by Mr. Gladstone. The text of Mr. Gladstone’s argument, in his book on the relations of the State with the Church, was Hooker’s saying, that the religious duty of kings is the weightiest part of their sovereignty; while Macaulay, in criticising this position, insisted that the main, if not the only, duty of a Government, to which all other objects must be subordinate, was the protection of persons and property. These two eminent politicians were, in fact, the champions of the ancient and the modern ideas of sovereignty; for the theory that a State is bound to propagate the religion that it professes was for many centuries the accepted theory of all Christian rulerships, though I think it now survives only in Mohammedan kingdoms. As the influence of religion in the sphere of politics declines, the State becomes naturally less concerned with the superintendence of religion; and the tendency of constitutional Governments seems to be towards abandoning it. The States that have completely dissolved connection with ecclesiastical institutions are the two great republics, the United States of America and France. We can discern at this moment a movement towards constitutional reforms in Mohammedan Asia, in Turkey, and Persia, and if they succeed it will be most interesting to observe the effect which liberal reforms will produce upon the relation of Mohammedan Governments with the dominant faith, and on which side the religious teachers will be arrayed. It is certain, at any rate, that for a long time to come religion will continue to be a potent factor in Asiatic politics; and I may add that the reconciliation of civil with religious liberty is one of the most arduous of the many problems to be solved by the promoters of national unity.”

India is not a monarchy! We urgently need to universalize the French concept of “citoyen”! (2009)

Each of the two sons of Feroze and Indira Gandhi died tragically  in his prime, years ago, and it is unbecoming to see their family successors squabble today. Everyone may need to be constantly reminded that this handful of persons are in fact ordinary citizens in our democratic polity, deserving India’s attention principally in such a capacity.

What did, indeed, Feroze Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Sanjay Gandhi, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi “live and die for”?  It was not any one identifiable thing or any set of common things, that seems certain.

Feroze Gandhi from all accounts stood for integrity in Indian politics and journalism; it is not impossible his premature death was related to  his wife’s negligence because she had returned to her father’s side instead.  Jawaharlal Nehru did not do well as a father to promote his daughter so blatantly as his assistant either before 1947

nehruindira70yearsago1

or after.

nehruindira56

Nehru did not achieve political power until well into middle age; his catastrophic misjudgment of communist ideology and intentions, especially Chinese communist ideology and intentions, contributed to an Indian defeat at war, and led soon thereafter to his health collapsing and his death. He and Indira somewhat nonchalantly made a visit to Ceylon even as the Chinese attack was commencing; a high point of my own childhood was saying namaste on October 13 1962 at Colombo airport when they arrived.

nehru

Feroze and Indira’s younger son evidently came to die in a self-inflicted aeronautical mishap of some sort.  What did Sanjay Gandhi “live for”?  The book Foundations of India’s Political Economy: Towards an Agenda for the 1990s created twenty years ago in America

indvol

has a chapter titled “The State of Governance” by the political scientist James Manor which says:

“After 1973 or so, personal loyalty tended increasingly to become the main criterion for advancement in the Congress Party. People who appeared to be loyal often replaced skilled political managers who seemed too independent.  Many of these new arrivals did not worry, as an earlier generation of Congress officials  had done, that excessive private profiteering might earn the wrath of party leaders.  In 1975, Sanjay Gandhi suddenly became the second most powerful figure in Indian politics.  He saw that the parties of the left and right had strong organizations that could put large numbers of militants into the streets for demonstrations while Congress had no such capacity.  In the belief that Congress should also have this kind of muscle, he began recruiting elements from urban centres including the criminal underworld.  The problem of corruption was exacerbated by demands that State-level Congress leaders place large sums of money at the disposal not of the national party but of the persons who presided over it.  Congress chief ministers realized that a fulsome response to these demands went a long way toward insulating them from interference from New Delhi, and a monumental system of fund-raising sprang up.  When so many people were being drawn into semi-institutionalized malfeasance, which seemed to be condoned by higher authorities, it was inevitable many would skim off portions of the funds raised for personal benefit.  Corruption soared. The problem was compounded by the tendency for people to be dismissed from public and party offices abruptly, leading many Congress politicians to fear that their time in power might be quite short.”

I do not have reason to disagree with this  opinion  contained in the book  that I and WE James created  at the University of Hawaii twenty years ago.   If anything, Sanjay’s political model may have spread  itself across  other Indian  political parties in one way or another.

What does strike me as odd in light of current  political controversy is that  several  of Sanjay’s friends and colleagues  are now part-and-parcel of the   Sonia Congress – one must ask, were they such fair-weather  friends that they never  lent a hand or a shoulder to his young widow and her infant son especially against the cruelties Sanjay’s mother bestowed upon them?  Did they offer help or guidance to Sanjay’s son, have they tried to guide him away from becoming the bigoted young politician he seems to wish to be today?

Indira’s major faults included playing favourites among her bahus and her grandchildren with as much gusto as any mother-in-law portrayed on the tackiest TV-serial today.

What were her good deeds?  There was one, and it was an enormously large one, of paramount significance for the country and our subcontinent as a whole: her statesmanship before, during and to some extent after the war that created Bangladesh.  My father has preserved a classic photograph over the years of Indira’s finest period as an international stateswoman, when she visited Paris and other foreign capitals including Washington in the autumn of 1971.

scan0024

She tried to prevent the Yahya Khan/Tikka Khan  genocide in Bangladesh when many  Bangladeshis came to be sacrificed at the altar of the Nixon-Kissinger visits to Mao and Zhou.  She made a major diplomatic effort in world capitals to avert war with West Pakistan over its atrocities in East Pakistan. But war could not be averted, and within a few weeks, in December 1971, Bangladesh was born.

“Indira Gandhi’s one and paramount good deed as India’s leader and indeed as a world leader of her time was to have fought a war that was so rare in international law for having been unambiguously just. And she fought it flawlessly. The cause had been thrust upon her by an evil enemy’s behaviour against his own people, an enemy supported by the world’s strongest military power with pretensions to global leadership. Victims of the enemy’s wickedness were scores of millions of utterly defenceless, penniless human beings. Indira Gandhi did everything right. She practised patient but firm diplomacy on the world’s stage to avert war if it was at all possible to do. She chose her military generals well and took their professional judgment seriously as to when to go to war and how to win it. Finally, in victory she was magnanimous to the enemy that had been defeated. Children’s history-books in India should remember her as the stateswoman who freed a fraternal nation from tyranny, at great expense to our own people. As a war-leader, Indira Gandhi displayed extraordinary bravery, courage and good sense.” (From my review article of Inder Malhotra’s Indira Gandhi, first published in The Statesman May 7 2006.)

“She had indeed fought that rarest of things in international law: the just war. Supported by the world’s strongest military, an evil enemy had made victims of his own people. Indira tried patiently on the international stage to avert war, but also chose her military generals well and took their professional judgment seriously as to when to fight if it was inevitable and how to win. Finally she was magnanimous (to a fault) towards the enemy ~ who was not some stranger to us but our own estranged brother and cousin.  It seemed to be her and independent India’s finest hour. A fevered nation was thus ready to forgive and forget her catastrophic misdeeds until that time….” (From  “Unhealthy Delhi” first published in The Statesman June 11 2007).

What did Indira die for?  I have said it was “blowback” from domestic and/or international politics, similar to what happened to Rajiv Gandhi and Benazir Bhutto in later years.

“Indira Gandhi died in “blowback” from the unrest she and her younger son and others in their party had opportunistically fomented among Sikh fundamentalists and sectarians since the late 1970s.  Rajiv Gandhi died in “blowback” from an erroneous imperialistic foreign policy that he, as Prime Minister, had been induced to make by jingoistic Indian diplomats, a move that got India’s military needlessly involved in the then-nascent Sri Lankan civil war.  Benazir Bhutto similarly may be seen to have died in “blowback” from her own political activity as prime minister and opposition leader since the late 1980s, including her own encouragement of Muslim fundamentalist forces.  Certainly in all three cases, as in all assassinations, there were lapses of security too and imprudent political judgments made that contributed to the tragic outcomes.” From “An Indian Reply to President Zardari”.

And then there was Rajiv.  He did not know me except in his last eight months. It has now emerged that Dr Manmohan Singh’s first bypass operation was in 1990-1991, coinciding precisely with the time I gave Rajiv the results of the perestroika-for-India project that I had led at the University of Hawaii since 1986, an encounter that sparked the 1991 economic reform as has been told elsewhere. Dr Singh was simply not in that loop, nor has he himself ever claimed to have been in it — regardless of what innumerable flatterers, sycophants and other straightforwardly mendacious characters in Delhi’s high power circles have been making out over the years since.  Facts are rather stubborn things.

As a 35-year old newcomer to Delhi and a complete layman on security issues, I did what little I knew  how to try to reduce the vulnerability that I felt  Rajiv  faced from unknown lists of assassins.

“That night KR dropped me at Tughlak Road where I used to stay with friends. In the car I told him, as he was a military man with heavy security cover for himself as a former Governor of J&K, that it seemed to me Rajiv’s security was being unprofessionally handled, that he was vulnerable to a professional assassin. KR asked me if I had seen anything specific by way of vulnerability. With John Kennedy and De Gaulle in mind, I said I feared Rajiv was open to a long-distance sniper, especially when he was on his campaign trips around the country.  This was one of several attempts I made since October 1990 to convey my clear impression to whomever I thought might have an effect that Rajiv seemed to me extremely vulnerable. Rajiv had been on sadhbhavana journeys, back and forth into and out of Delhi. I had heard he was fed up with his security apparatus, and I was not surprised given it seemed at the time rather bureaucratized. It would not have been appropriate for me to tell him directly that he seemed to me to be vulnerable, since I was a newcomer and a complete amateur about security issues, and besides if he agreed he might seem to himself to be cowardly or have to get even closer to his security apparatus. Instead I pressed the subject relentlessly with whomever I could. I suggested specifically two things: (a) that the system in place at Rajiv’s residence and on his itineraries be tested, preferably by some internationally recognized specialists in counter-terrorism; (b) that Rajiv be encouraged to announce a shadow-cabinet. The first would increase the cost of terrorism, the second would reduce the potential political benefit expected by terrorists out to kill him. On the former, it was pleaded that security was a matter being run by the V. P. Singh and then Chandrashekhar Governments at the time. On the latter, it was said that appointing a shadow cabinet might give the appointees the wrong idea, and lead to a challenge to Rajiv’s leadership. This seemed to me wrong, as there was nothing to fear from healthy internal contests for power so long as they were conducted in a structured democratic framework. I pressed to know how public Rajiv’s itinerary was when he travelled. I was told it was known to everyone and that was the only way it could be since Rajiv wanted to be close to the people waiting to see him and had been criticized for being too aloof. This seemed to me totally wrong and I suggested that if Rajiv wanted to be seen as meeting the crowds waiting for him then that should be done by planning to make random stops on the road that his entourage would take. This would at least add some confusion to the planning of potential terrorists out to kill him. When I pressed relentlessly, it was said I should probably speak to “Madame”, i.e. to Mrs. Rajiv Gandhi. That seemed to me highly inappropriate, as I could not be said to be known to her and I should not want to unduly concern her in the event it was I who was completely wrong in my assessment of the danger. The response that it was not in Congress’s hands, that it was the responsibility of the V. P. Singh and later the Chandrashekhar Governments, seemed to me completely irrelevant since Congress in its own interests had a grave responsibility to protect Rajiv Gandhi irrespective of what the Government’s security people were doing or not doing. Rajiv was at the apex of the power structure of the party, and a key symbol of secularism and progress for the entire country. Losing him would be quite irreparable to the party and the country. It shocked me that the assumption was not being made that there were almost certainly professional killers actively out to kill Rajiv Gandhi — this loving family man and hapless pilot of India’s ship of state who did not seem to have wished to make enemies among India’s terrorists but whom the fates had conspired to make a target. The most bizarre and frustrating response I got from several respondents was that I should not mention the matter at all as otherwise the threat would become enlarged and the prospect made more likely! This I later realized was a primitive superstitious response of the same sort as wearing amulets and believing in Ptolemaic astrological charts that assume the Sun goes around the Earth — centuries after Kepler and Copernicus. Perhaps the entry of scientific causality and rationality is where we must begin in the reform of India’s governance and economy. What was especially repugnant after Rajiv’s assassination was to hear it said by his enemies that it marked an end to “dynastic” politics in India. This struck me as being devoid of all sense because the unanswerable reason for protecting Rajiv Gandhi was that we in India, if we are to have any pretensions at all to being a civilized and open democratic society, cannot tolerate terrorism and assassination as means of political change. Either we are constitutional democrats willing to fight for the privileges of a liberal social order, or ours is truly a primitive and savage anarchy concealed beneath a veneer of fake Westernization…..  the news suddenly said Rajiv Gandhi had been killed. All India wept. What killed him was not merely a singular act of criminal terrorism, but the system of humbug, incompetence and sycophancy that surrounds politics in India and elsewhere. I was numbed by rage and sorrow, and did not return to Delhi. Eleven years later, on 25 May 2002, press reports said “P. V. Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh lost their place in Congress history as architects of economic reforms as the Congress High command sponsored an amendment to a resolution that had laid credit at the duo’s door. The motion was moved by…. Digvijay Singh asserting that the reforms were a brainchild of the late Rajiv Gandhi and that the Rao-Singh combine had simply nudged the process forward.” Rajiv’s years in Government, like those of Indira Gandhi, were in fact marked by profligacy and the resource cost of poor macroeconomic policy since bank-nationalisation may be as high as Rs. 125 trillion measured in 1994 rupees. Certainly though it was Rajiv Gandhi as Leader of the Opposition in his last months who was the principal architect of the economic reform that came to begin after his passing.”

(I have had to say that I do not think the policies pursued by Dr Singh thus far have been consistent with the direction I believe Rajiv,  in a second term as PM, would have wished to take. See, for example, “India’s Macroeconomics”, “Fallacious Finance”, “Against Quackery”, “Mistaken Macroeconomics”, and other articles listed and linked at “Memo to Dr Kaushik Basu”.  See also https://independentindian.com/2006/05/21/the-politics-of-dr-singh/ https://independentindian.com/2008/04/25/assessing-manmohan-the-doctor-of-deficit-finance-should-realise-the-currency-is-at-stake/  https://independentindian.com/2013/08/23/did-jagdish-bhagwati-originate-pioneer-intellectually-father-indias-1991-economic-reform-did-manmohan-singh-or-did-i-through-my-encounter-with-rajiv-gandhi-just-as-siddhartha-shan/)

The treatment of Indira or Rajiv or Sanjay or their family successors as royalty of any kind whatsoever in India was, is, and remains absurd, reflecting stunted growth of Indian democracy.  I remember well the obsequiousness I witnessed on the part of old men in the presence of Rajiv Gandhi.

Tribal and mansabdari political cultures still dominate Northern and Western regions of the Indian subcontinent (descending from the Sikhs, Muslims, Rajputs, Mahrattas etc).

Nehru in his younger days was an exemplary democrat, and he had an outstanding democratically-minded young friend in Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah.

abdullahnehru1947

But Nehru and Abdullah as Westernized political liberals were exceptions  in the autocratic/monarchical political cultures of north India (and Pakistan) which continue today and stunt the growth of any democratic mindset.

What we may urgently need is some French  Liberté, égalité, fraternité ! to create a simple ordinary citoyen universally in the country and the subcontinent as a whole!  May we please import a Marquis de Lafayette?

Bengal and parts of Dravidian India have long lost fondness for monarchy and autocracy —  Western political liberalism began to reach  Kolkata  almost two centuries ago after all (see e.g. Tapan Raychaudhuri’s  fine study Europe Reconsidered). Both Nepal and Pakistan have been undergoing radical transformation towards democracy in recent  months, as Bengali Pakistanis had done 40 years earlier under Sheikh Mujib.  I said last year and say again that there may be a dangerous  intellectual vacuum around the throne of Delhi.

Subroto Roy

Pump-priming for car-dealers: Keynes groans in his grave (If evidence was needed of the intellectual dishonesty of New Delhi’s new macroeconomic policy, here it is)

Pump-priming for car-dealers: Keynes groans in his grave

(If evidence was needed of the intellectual dishonesty of New Delhi’s new macroeconomic policy, here it is)

by

Subroto Roy

I have said the  Government of India’s new macroeconomic policy announced on Sunday by Dr Manmohan Singh’s main economic policy aide has no economic models or data to support it, and may as likely worsen rather than dampen any business-cycle India might be on for the simple reason that no one has a clue where we are in the cycle, or indeed even if such a cycle exists. (See https://independentindian.com/2008/12/07/will-the-government-of-indias-economic-policy-dampen-or-worsen-the-business-cycle-if-such-a-cycle-exists-at-all-no-one-knows-%E2%80%9Cwhere-ignorance-is-bliss-%E2%80%98tis-folly-to-be-wise/)

The policy appears to be the result of the usual intense lobbying by organised  capital and organised labour with the Government’s Ministries in New Delhi.

If evidence was needed of this root intellectual dishonesty, one need look only as far as “Highlights of India’s fiscal stimulus package” (Daily News and Analysis, December 7 2008) and note the item:

” Norms for government departments to replace vehicles relaxed”.

Dr Singh’s aide, after announcing the policy, openly spoke of how private automobile manufacturers had accumulated a lot of unintended inventory due to falling sales, and how they needed, in his opinion, to lower prices.  Evidently, the Government has also decided to itself  buy a lot of that unintended inventory too, using  the very scarce  public  resources of India’s ordinary people.  Pump-priming for car-dealers — JM Keynes groans in his grave!  Watch out for those fancy  fast new cars carrying India’s bureaucrats, politicians and their friends and family!

The Indian Revolution

The Indian Revolution

by

Subroto Roy

 

Prefatory Note Dec 2008: This outlines what might have happened if (a) Rajiv Gandhi had not been assassinated; (b) I had known at age 36 all that I now know at age 53. Both are counterfactuals and hence this is a work of fiction. It was written long before the Mumbai massacres; the text has been left unchanged.

 

 

“India’s revolution, when it came, was indeed bloodless and non-violent but it was firm and clear-headed and inevitably upset a lot of hitherto powerful people.

 

The first thing the Revolutionary Government declared when it took over in Delhi was that the rupee would become a genuine hard currency of the world economy within 18 months.  This did not seem a very revolutionary thing to say and the people at first did not understand what was meant.  The Revolutionaries explained: “Paper money and the banks have been abused by all previous regimes ruling in Delhi since 1947 who learnt their tricks from British war-time techniques.  We will give you for the first time in free India a rupee as good as gold, an Indian currency as respectable as any other in the world, dollar, pound, yen, whatever.  What you earn with your hard work and resources will be measured by a sound standard of value, not continuously devalued in secret by government misuse”.

 

The people were intrigued but not enlightened much.  Nor did they  grasp things to come when the Revolutionary Government abolished the old Planning Commission, sending its former head as envoy to New Zealand (with a long reading-list); attached the Planning Commission as a new R&D wing to the Finance Ministry; detached the RBI from the Finance Ministry; instructed the RBI Governor to bring proper work-culture and discipline to his 75,000 staff and instructed the Monetary Policy Deputy Governor to prepare plans for becoming a constitutionally independent authority, besides a possible monetary decentralization towards the States.  India’s people did not understand all this, but  there began to be a sense that something was up in Lutyens’ Delhi faraway.

 

The Revolutionary Government started to seem a little revolutionary when it called in  police-chiefs of all States — the PM himself then signed an order routed via the Home Ministry that they were to state in writing, within a fortnight, how they intended to improve discipline and work-culture in the forces they commanded.  Each was also asked to name three reliable deputies, and left in no doubt what that meant.  State Chief Ministers murmured objections but rumours swirled about more to come and they shut up quickly.  The Revolutionary Government sent a terse note to all CMs asking their assistance in implementation of this and any further orders.  It also set up a “Prison Reform and Reconstruction Panel” with instructions to (a) survey all prisons in the country with a view to immediately reduce injustices within the prison-system; (b) enlarge capacity in the event fresh enforcement of the Rule of Law came to demand this.

 

The Revolutionary Government then asked all senior members of the judiciary to a meeting in Trivandrum.  There they declared the judiciary must remain impartial and objective, not show favoritism even to members of the Revolutionary Party itself who might be in court before them for whatever reason.  The judges were assured of carte blanche by way of resources to improve quality of all public services under them; at the same time, a new “Internal Affairs Department” was formed that would assure the public that the Bench and the Bar never forgot their noble calling.  When a former judge and a former senior counsel came to be placed in two cells of the new prison-system, the public finally felt something serious was afoot.  Late night comics on TV led the public’s mirth — “Thieves have authority when judges steal themselves”, waxed one eloquently.

 

The Revolutionary Government’s next step reached into all nooks and crannies of the country.  A large room in the new Finance Ministry was assigned to each State – a few days later, the Revolutionary Government announced it had taken over control under the Constitution’s financial emergency provision of all State budgets for a period of six months at the outset.

 

Now there was an irrepressible outcry from State Chief Ministers, loud enough for the Revolutionary Government to ask them to a national meeting, this time in Agartala.  When the Delhi CM sweetly complained she did not know how to get there, she got back two words “Get there”; and she did.

 

There the PM told the CMs they would get their budgets back some day but only after the Revolutionary Government had overseen their cleaning and restoration to financial health from their current rotten state.   “But Prime Minister, the States have had no physical assets”, one bright young CM found courage to blurt out.

 

“That is the first good question I have heard since our Revolution began,” answered the PM. “We are going to give you the Railways to start with —  Indian Railways will keep control of a few national trains and tracks but will be instructed to devolve control and ownership of all other assets to you, the States.  See that you use your new assets properly”.  There was a collective whoop of excitement.  “During the time your budgets remain with us, get your police, transport, education and hospital systems to work for the benefit of common people, confer with your oppositions about how you can get your legislatures to work at all.  Keep in mind we are committed to making the rupee a hard currency of the world and we will not stand for any waste, fraud or abuse of public moneys. We really don’t want to be tested on what we mean by that. We are doing the same with the Union Government and the whole public sector”.  The Chief Ministers went home nervous and excited.

 

Finally, the Revolutionary Government turned to Lutyens’ Delhi itself. Foreign ambassadors were called in one by one and politely informed a scale-back had been ordered in Indian diplomatic missions in their countries, and hence by due protocol, a scale-back in their New Delhi embassies was called for.  “We are pulling our staff, incidentally, from almost all international and UN agencies too because we need such high-quality administrators more at home than abroad”, the Revolutionary Foreign Minister told the startled ambassadors.

 

Palpable tension rose in the national capital when the Revolutionary Government announced that Members of Parliament would receive public housing of high quality but only in their home constituencies!  The MPs would have to vacate their Delhi bungalows and apartments! “But we are Delhi!  We must have facilities in Delhi!”, MPs cried. “Yes, rooms in nationalized hotels suffice for your legislative needs; kindly vacate the bungalows as required; we will be building national memorials, libraries and museums there”, replied the radicals in power.  Tension in the capital did not subside for weeks because the old political parties all had thrived on Delhi’s social circuit, whose epicenter swirled around a handful of such bungalows.  Now those old power-equations were all lost.  A few MPs decided to boycott Delhi and only work in their constituencies.

 

When the Pakistan envoy was called with a letter for her PM, outlining a process of détente on the USSR-USA pattern of mutual verification of demilitarization, both bloated militaries were upset to see their jobs and perks being cut but steps had been taken to ensure there was never any serious danger of a coup.  The Indian Revolution was in full swing and continued for a few years until coherence and integrity had been forced upon the public finances and currency of a thousand million people….”

see also

https://independentindian.com/2013/11/23/coverage-of-my-delhi-talk-on-3-dec-2012/

Will the Government of India’s new macroeconomic policy dampen or worsen the business-cycle (if such a cycle exists at all)? No one knows! “Where ignorance is bliss, ‘Tis folly to be wise.”

I began a two part article published in The Statesman last year (September 23-24 2007) titled “Against Quackery” saying:

“WASTE, fraud and abuse are inevitable in the use and allocation of public property and resources in India as elsewhere, but Government is supposed to fight and resist such tendencies. The Sonia-Manmohan Government have done the opposite, aiding and abetting a wasteful anti-economics ~ i.e., an economic quackery. Vajpayee-Advani and other Governments, including Narasimha-Manmohan in 1991-1996, were just as complicit in the perverse policy-making. So have been State Governments of all regional parties…. Our dismal politics merely has the pot calling the kettle black while national self-delusion and superstition reign in the absence of reason.  The general pattern is one of well-informed, moneyed, mostly city-based special interest groups (especially including organised capital and organised labour) dominating government agendas at the cost of ill-informed, diffused anonymous individual citizens ~ peasants, small businessmen, non-unionized workers, old people, housewives, medical students etc….

The cheap money policy announced yesterday and now the so-called “fiscal stimulus” announced today may be a case in point.  Dr Manmohan Singh’s main economic policy aide said the aim was for Government to act in a “contra-cyclical”  manner,  presumably referring to an attempted “counter cyclical policy” to dampen the amplitude of a business-cycle.

But has anyone asked — let aside, does anyone know — where precisely, in terms of phase, period and amplitude, India’s macro-economy happens to be on its presumed business-cycle?  Of course not.   No one has the faintest clue.   There are no models of such a cycle existing and there are no data which have been fit to such non-existent models.   Not in Delhi, not in Mumbai, not with any international agency.

[Inspector Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
Sherlock  Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
Inspector Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
Sherlock  Holmes: “That was the curious incident.”]

A cheap money policy and a so-called “fiscal stimulus” may in fact, for all that anyone in the Government of India or outside it really knows, exacerbate the amplitude of a business-cycle — making it worse, not better.

In such a  state of ignorance,  it is odd for policy-makers to go about glibly formulating and announcing so many policy-changes at once.   (It may all add up to be just incoherent waffle.)   Such has been the typical pattern to emerge from the process of political lobbying by “well-informed, moneyed, mostly city-based special interest groups”.   Organised capital and organised labour (as well as of course bureaucrats and politicians) will likely do very well from all this as usual, at the expense of  “ill-informed, diffused anonymous individual citizens” of India.


Of a new New Delhi myth and the success of the University of Hawaii 1986-1992 Pakistan project (with 2015 Postscript)

A leading Indian commentator says in this morning’s paper (November 15 2008) about Manmohan Singh:

“His formulation on Kashmir (“I have no mandate to change borders, but we can make borders irrelevant”), became the obvious solution once he articulated it.”

Such may be how  modern New Delhi’s myths and self-delusions  get born — since in fact there is no evidence that Manmohan Singh  or any of his acolytes had anything to do with originating the Pakistan-India peace process in recent decades, just as there has not been that Manmohan Singh or  any of his acolytes had anything to do with originating the  Congress Party’s new economic thinking in 1990-1991.

(Lest I be misunderstood I should add at the outset that I have the highest personal regard for Dr Singh, he has been  in decades past a friend of my father’s, he at my father’s request consented to discuss economics with me in Paris in 1973 when I was a callow lad of 18, he himself has not claimed the originality that has been frequently mis-attributed to him by others for whatever reason, etc.)

The origins of  the idea  about India-Pakistan and J&K expressed by Manmohan Singh’s words are to be found in the last paragraph of the Introduction by the Editors of a book which arose from the University of Hawaii’s 1986-1992 Pakistan project, which read:

“Kashmir… must be demilitarised and unified by both countries sooner or later, and it must be done without force. There has been enough needless bloodshed on the subcontinent… Modern Pakistanis and Indians are free peoples who can voluntarily agree in their own interests to alter the terms set hurriedly by Attlee or Mountbatten in the Indian Independence Act 1947. Nobody but we ourselves keeps us prisoners of superficial definitions of who we are or might be. The subcontinent could evolve its political identity over a period of time on the pattern of Western Europe, with open borders and (common) tariffs to the outside world, with the free movement of people, capital, ideas and culture. Large armed forces could be reduced and transformed in a manner that would enhance the security of each nation. The real and peaceful economic revolution of the masses of the subcontinent would then be able to begin.”

The University of Hawaii’s Pakistan project, involving Pakistani and other scholars, including one Indian, led to the volume Foundations of Pakistan’s Political Economy: Towards an Agenda for the 1990s published in Karachi, New Delhi and elsewhere. The book reached Nawaz Sharif and the Islamabad elite, including the most hawkish of Islamabad’s hawks, and Pervez Musharraf’s 2006 proposal on J&K, endorsed warmly by the US State Department,  may have grown from that paragraph. The Editors of the book, as economists themselves, decried the waste of resources involved in the Pakistan-India confrontation, saying it had

“greatly impoverished the general budgets of both Pakistan and India. If it has benefited important sections of the political and military elites of  both countries, it has done so only at the expense of the general welfare of the masses.”

Such words were impossibly bold in the  late 1980s-early 1990s.  However,  as stated in  a special editorial article “What to tell Musharraf”     in The Statesman of December 16 2006, they seemed  in recent years incomplete and rather naïve even to their author, who was myself, the only Indian in that project and the one who had conceived it. Most significantly, the position in international law in the context of historical facts had been wholly neglected. So had been the manifest nature of the Pakistani state (as it had become prior to the splendid 2008 elections).

The Hawaii project had involved top Pakistani economists, political scientists and other commentators but had deliberately chosen to keep the military and the religious clergy out of its chapters.  And it was the military and religious clergy who in fact came to dominate Pakistan’s agenda in the 1990s, at least until the 9/11 attacks in America indirectly  altered the political direction of the country.

The peaceful and mundane economic agenda outlined for Pakistan in the Hawaii project  has come into its own  by way of  relevance ever since.  A few weeks ago, the first trucks filled with fruit, woolens and many other goods traversed across the “Line of Control” in J&K for the first time in sixty years.   The Pakistan project that James and I led at the University of Hawaii in the late 1980s may be now declared a success.   Among other things, our book explained to Indians that there does exist a Pakistani point of view and perhaps explained to Pakistanis that there does exist an Indian point of view.  That  is something that had not existed before our book.

pak

Postscript 18 Nov 2015:  I have made clear at Twitter that I find the K.M. Kasuri book promoted and publicized in India by MS Aiyar, S Kulkarni, B Dutt and others in Delhi and Mumbai is mendacious where it is not merely self-serving.  Its clear intent is to get India to accept the (false) ISI/Hurriyat narratives about 1947, Kashmir, Bangladesh, terrorism etc.  Its purported ideas of demilitarisation and a borderless Kashmir are essentially lifted from my earlier 1980s work in America cited above — which I myself have rejected as naive since the Pakistani aggression in Kargil in 1999.  More anon.

Assessing Manmohan: The Doctor of Deficit Finance should realise the currency is at stake

Assessing Manmohan:

The Doctor of Deficit Finance should realise the currency is at stake

by Subroto Roy

First published in The Statesman, Editorial Page Special Article, April 25 2008,

The best thing that may be said of the Manmohan Singh premiership is that when it began in May 2004, it seemed, for a short while, refreshing in comparison to the dysfunctional arrogance and brutality displayed by its predecessor. By the last months of the Vajpayee-Advani Government, there were party appointees who had ended all pretence of purportedly Hindu values and were raking it in shamelessly. The Golden Rule of Democracy is “Throw the rascals out”, which is what Indian democracy upheld as it has done time and again. By 2009, India’s electorate will have the chance to decide whether the incumbent government deserves the same fate.

Lok Sabha

Manmohan Singh was seriously discussed as the Congress’s putative nominee for PM as early as 2001. The idea brewing at the time with the party’s next generation of wannabe leaders (in their 50s and 60s, where Manmohan was near 70) was that they needed to maintain good relations with the Great White Queen and wait out one term of an inevitable Singh premiership before having a shot at the top job themselves.

What is surprising is Dr Singh appeared never to feel it necessary to educate himself privately on how to retool himself for the necessary transformation from being the archetypal bureaucrat he had been in his working career to becoming the national statesman he wished to be after retirement. It is doubtful, for example, if he ever stood in front of a mirror and practised an extempore political speech in Hindi in preparation for the highest executive post in the country, let aside writing a clear-headed, original vision or mission statement of substance as to where he wished to lead it. As Narasimha Rao’s Finance Minister, he could meekly take orders from his PM; it seemed he wished to continue in the same mode even when PM himself.

Jawaharlal Nehru is supposed to have been a hero of Dr Singh’s ~ but Nehru was a thorough parliamentarian, among the finest anywhere, and someone who always respected the Lok Sabha immensely. Dr Singh, after he lost to VK Malhotra for the South Delhi seat in 1999, made not the slightest effort to enter the Lok Sabha again, even when the Akalis indicated they might not oppose him in a Punjab contest. When asked specifically at a large press conference about not entering the Lok Sabha, Dr Singh murmured words to the effect he had better uses of his time ~ a display, if anything, of the misplaced arrogance of many New Delhi academics and intellectuals. Dr Singh may be the first PM in any parliamentary democracy never to have won a seat in the lower house nor felt a need to do so.

Dr Singh’s bureaucratic expertise assisted him well in the first national crisis that came his way, which was the Tsunami of 26 December 2004. There appeared to be an air of efficiency about the Government’s response and he seemed in his element as commander of bureaucratic forces while working with Pranab Mukherjee in enlisting the military. George W. Bush (not a great geographer or historian) was apparently impressed to see on a map that India had naval forces deployed as far as the Andamans.

By 2005 though, Dr Singh’s bureaucratic mindset had its negative impact. Montek Ahluwalia had been his Finance Secretary when he was Finance Minister. Mr Ahluwalia’s spouse had been a main supporter of Dr Singh’s unsuccessful Lok Sabha attempt. During the Vajpayee Government, Mr Ahluwalia remained a Planning Commission Member for several years before moving to Washington. With Dr Singh as PM, Mr Ahluwalia returned from the USA in mid 2004 to become Deputy Chair at the Planning Commission. Simultaneously with his return, the idea that the American nuclear industry would like to sell “six to eight lightwater reactors” to India arose.

That is as much as is presently known in public. Dr Singh and Mr Ahluwalia may in the national interest want to frankly and precisely explain to the Indian people the full story of the sudden origins of this idea. Certainly, none of the lessons of the Dabhol fiasco a decade earlier seemed to have been learnt, and the Maharasthtra Government (and hence the Government of India) ended up paying some $300 million to General Electric and Bechtel Corporation for Dabhol before any nuclear talks with the USA could begin. Nor had any serious cost-benefit analysis been done or discussion taken place comparing nuclear energy with coal, hydro and other sources in the Indian case.

Indian foreign policy became frozen in its focus on nuclear negotiations with the USA, swirling around Dr Singh’s fife-and-drum welcome at the White House and President Bush’s return visit to India. At the same time arose the issue of Paul Volcker’s UN committee mentioning the name of India’s foreign minister. As The Statesman put it, regardless of the latter’s involvement, “the damage to India’s diplomatic reputation in the world” was done and it was inevitable a new foreign minister would be necessary. After dilly-dallying and much 10 Janpath to-and-fro, Dr Singh followed Nehru’s mistake of becoming his own foreign minister. The idea was that this would be temporary but it became almost a year.

Instead of transforming himself towards Indian political statesmanship, Dr Singh advanced other retired bureaucrats’ ambitions on similar career-paths. Foreign policy went out of the MEA’s control and seemingly into the control of the new “National Security Adviser”. Dr Singh, sometimes with MK Narayanan beside him, travelled a large number of countries from Brazil to Finland and Uzbekistan to South Africa and Japan. Dr Singh also found time and willingness to accept honorary degrees from British and Russian universities during these short months.

While Dr Singh seemed thus preoccupied, two of India’s main neighbours underwent massive democratic revolutions (leave aside magnificent Bhutan). Nepal’s people practically stormed their Bastille while Dr Singh and Mr Narayanan visited Germany to discuss BMWs. Pakistan’s democratic forces could hardly believe the cold indifference shown to them by a New Delhi merely following Bush’s support for Pervez Musharraf. While Pakistan and Nepal, and to lesser extent Bangladesh, saw movements towards better governance, Sri Lanka descended towards civil war ~ India’s PM remained obsessed with the magic wand that the nuclear deal was supposed to be.

Inflation

Then suddenly the magic vanished ~ Dr Singh seemed to finally come to a silent private recognition that the economics of the nuclear deal simply did not add up if it meant India importing “six to eight lightwater reactors” on a turnkey basis from the USA or anywhere else. Dr Singh seemed to come out of his self-imposed trance and return a little better to reality. By the time he visited China, although he was as deferential to Hu Jintao in his body language as he had been to Bush and Musharraf and even accepted an indoor guard of honour, he also seemed willing to stand up for India. The Arunachal visit was a reality-check.

Now there is inflation ~ and one year left in the UPA’s term. What the country needs is tough sensible macroeconomics and clean public finance. A pandering profligate budget in February was not a healthy sign. Instructing Mr Ahluwalia to close down the Planning Commission and make it a minor R&D wing of the Finance Ministry would be instead a good step. Instructing the RBI to clean up its bureaucratic wastefulness and prepare itself for institutional independence from the Finance Ministry would be even better. Getting proper financial control over every Union and State government entity spending public money and resources would be most important of all. Such major institutional changes in the policy-making process are what an economist might expect of an economist prime minister who wishes to lead India in the 21st Century. India’s currency is at stake.

(See also:  “The Politics of Dr Singh”, May 2006; “Mistaken Macroeconomics”, June 2009, etc.)

Two cheers for Pakistan!

Two cheers for Pakistan!

by

Subroto Roy

First published in The Statesman

Editorial Page Special Article, April 7, 2008

A century has passed since British rulers in India like Curzon and Minto became self-styled interlocutors between Muslims and Hindus of the subcontinent. Up through the 19th century there had been no significant national political conversation between India’s main communities. The “Chief Translator” of the High Court in Calcutta was highly prized for his knowledge of Sanskrit, Persian and English because at least three different sets of laws governed different people in the country. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad wrote of his experience in the Bankim-inspired revolutionary societies of Bengal who treated him with extreme suspicion because they could hardly believe a Muslim wanted to join them as an anti-British rebel.

Jinnah vs Azad

Then came MA Jinnah, Iqbal, Rahmat Ali and others, initial creators of Pakistan whether through greater or lesser motives. Azad, Zakir Hussain, Sheikh Abdullah and other Muslims were equally firm the Pakistan idea was not only bad for India in the world it was bad for Muslims in particular. The Azads condemned the Jinnahs as greedy megalomaniacs, the Jinnahs condemned the Azads as minions of the Hindus. Larke lenge Pakistan, marke lenge Pakistan, khoon se lenge Pakistan, dena hoga Pakistan was the mob-cry during the bloody Partition, while the British, weakened by war and economics and bereft of their imperial pretensions, made haste to leave “this beastly country” to its fate ~ rather hoping the bloodshed would be such someone might hire them to stay on.

Certainly, having used the Indian Army for imperial purposes in the War, Britain (represented locally by a series of smartly dressed blundering fools) behaved irresponsibly in not properly demobilizing that Army during a period of intense communal tension. There were no senior Indian officers ~ KM Cariappa became a Brigadier only in 1946, Ayub Khan was a Colonel under him. Then there were the fatuous “princes” the British had propped up in “Indian India”, few being more than cardboard creatures. Among them was J&K’s ruler who was a member of Churchill’s War Cabinet and had come to harbour illusions of international grandeur. Once J&K’s Muslim soldiers returned to their Mirpuri homes, Jammu and Punjab were in communal conflict, months before the decision that Pakistan would indeed be created out of designated areas of British India just before British India extinguished itself. Army-issued Bren guns came to be used by former soldiers in communal massacres of the convoys of refugees going in each direction.

Part of the problem over J&K since then has been that it seems a dialogue of the deaf. Pakistanis since Zafrullah Khan claimed it was communal violence against Muslims in Jammu and Punjab that prompted the Pashtun invasion of Srinagar Valley beginning 22 October 1947; Indians have always claimed the new (and partly British-officered) Pakistan Army organized and instigated the invasion, coinciding with the planned takeover of Gilgit.

As in all complex moral problems, there was truth on all sides though no one doubts the invasion was savage and that the Pashtuns carried off Kashmiri women, Hindu, Muslim and Sikh. J&K descended into civil war, Abdullah’s secularists backed by the new India, Ibrahim’s communalists by the new Pakistan. Field Marshall Auchinlek, who commanded both Indian and Pakistani armies, had the decency to resign when he realized his forces were at war with one another. That J&K could not be independent in international law was sealed when the 15 October 1947 telegram sent by Hari Singh’s regime went unanswered by Attlee. The tribal invasion from Pakistan caused the old State of J&K to become an ownerless entity in international law, whose territories were then carved up by force by the two new British Dominions (later republics) and the result has been the “LOC”.

ZA Bhutto was perhaps Pakistan’s only politician after that time. The years between the assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan and the rise of Bhutto saw Pakistan’s military begin its liaison with the Americans ~ from the US Ambassador’s daughter marrying the Pakistan President’s son to the leasing of Peshawar’s airfields for U-2 flights over the USSR. Yet Bhutto’s deep flaws also contributed to the loss of Bangladesh and to brutality, supported by the Shah of Iran’s American helicopters, against the Baloch.

Bhutto’s daughter now may have succeeded in death where she could not in life. Like Indira Gandhi, there seemed a shrill almost self-sacrificial air about Benazir in her last days, and, like Indira, her assassination caused all her countrymen including her enemies to undergo an existential experience. Perhaps the public death of a woman in public life touches some chivalrous chord in everyone.

Benazir’s husband was transformed from seeming a rather dubious self-seeker to becoming a national leader of some sobriety. Her old adversary Nawaz Sharif, brought to power by one Army Chief and removed by another, is now a constitutional democrat – seemingly adamant that there be the Rule of Law and not of generals. Most of all, Benazir’s death seemed to completely shut up that most loquacious of Pakistanis: Pervez Musharraf. Musharraf seemed stunned and promised free, fair and transparent elections; though no one believed he would deliver, he somehow did. He would like now to be a senior statesman though it seems as likely his countrymen will not forgive his misdeeds and instead exile him to America.

Afghanistan

Pakistan’s main international problem is not and has never been J&K. It has been and remains its unsettled western border and identity vis-à-vis Afghanistan (as India’s problem has been the eastern border with China). Dr Khan Sahib and Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan knew this but they were not allowed to speak by Pakistan’s Kashmir-obsessed elite. Zaheer Shah’s Afghanistan was the only country that voted against Pakistan joining the UN sixty years ago.

The present author has said before that Osama bin Laden may well be safely and comfortably in the deserts of North Africa while NATO and the Americans raise hell in Afghanistan and Waziristan pretending to look for him. It is not in India’s interest as it is not in Pakistan’s interest that Western militaries, who seem to have nothing better to do, brutalize Afghans of all descriptions in the name of nation-building or fighting “terrorism”. Afghan nation-building can only ultimately come from the Afghans themselves, no matter how many loya jirgas it takes. What Pakistan dislikes emerging from New Delhi is the sometimes rather supercilious and ignorant condescension that our officialdom is infamous for. Instead, with a new, seemingly clear-headed and well-intentioned Government in Pakistan elected for the first time ever, it may be time for all good people in the subcontinent to raise a glass of fruit juice and say “Two cheers for Pakistan!”

China’s India Example: Tibet, Xinjiang May Not Be Assimilated Like Inner Mongolia, Manchuria (2008)

Note: My articles on related subjects recently published in The Statesman include “Understanding China”, “China’s India Aggression”, “China’s Commonwealth”,  “Nixon & Mao vs India”, “Lessons from the 1962 War”, “China’s force & diplomacy” etc https://independentindian.com/2009/09/19/my-ten-articles-on-china-tibet-xinjiang-taiwan-in-relation-to-india/

China’s India Example: Tibet, Xinjiang May Not Be Assimilated Like Inner Mongolia And Manchuria

 by

 Subroto Roy

 

First published in The Statesman, Editorial Page Special Article March 25, 2008

 

Zhang Qingli, Tibet’s current Communist Party boss, reportedly said last year, “The Communist Party is like the parent (father and mother) of the Tibetans. The Party is the real boddhisatva of the Tibetans.” Before communism, China’s people followed three non-theistic religious cultures, Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism, choosing whichever aspects of each they wished to see in their daily lives. Animosity towards the theism of Muslims and Christians predates the 1911 revolution. Count Witte, Russia’s top diplomatist in Czarist times, reported the wild contempt towards Islam and wholly unprovoked insult of the Emir of Bokhara by Li Hung Chang, Imperial China’s eminent Ambassador to Moscow, normally the epitome of civility and wisdom. In 1900 the slogan of the Boxer Revolts was “Protect the country, destroy the foreigner” and catholic churches and European settlers and priests were specifically targeted. The Communists have not discriminated in repression of religious belief and practice ~ monasteries, mosques, churches have all experienced desecration; monks, ulema, clergymen all expected to subserve the Party and the State.

Chinese nationalism

For Chinese officials to speak of “life and death” struggle against the Dalai Lama sitting in Dharamsala is astounding; if they are serious, it signals a deep long-term insecurity felt in Beijing. How can enormous, wealthy, strong China feel any existential threat at all from unarmed poor Tibetans riding on ponies? Is an Israeli tank-commander intimidated by stone-throwing Palestinian boys? How is it China (even a China where the Party assumes it always knows best), is psychologically defensive and unsure of itself at every turn?

The Chinese in their long history have not been a violent martial people ~ disorganized and apolitical traders and agriculturists and highly civilised artisans and scholars more than fierce warriors fighting from horseback. Like Hindus, they were far more numerous than their more aggressive warlike invading rulers. Before the 20th Century, China was dominated by Manchu Tartars and Mongol Tartars from the Northeast and Northwest ~ the Manchus forcing humiliation upon Chinese men by compelling shaved heads with pigtails. Similar Tartar hordes ruled Russia for centuries and Stalin himself, according to his biographer, might have felt Russia buffered Europe from the Tartars.

Chinese nationalism arose only in the 20th Century, first under the Christian influence of Sun Yatsen and his brother-in-law Chiang Kaishek, later under the atheism of Mao Zedong and his admiring friends, most recently Deng Xiaoping and successors. “Socialism with Chinese characteristics” is the slogan of the present Communist Party but a more realistic slogan of what Mao and friends came to represent in their last decades may be “Chinese nationalism with socialist characteristics”. Taiwan and to lesser extent Singapore and Hong Kong represent “Chinese nationalism with capitalist characteristics”. Western observers, keen always to know the safety of their Chinese investments, have focused on China’s economics, whether the regime is capitalist or socialist and to what extent ~ Indians and other Asians may be keener to identify, and indeed help the Chinese themselves to identify better, the evolving nature of Chinese nationalism and the healthy or unhealthy courses this may now take.

Just as Czarist and Soviet Russia attempted Russification in Finland, the Baltics, Poland, Ukraine etc., Imperial and Maoist China attempted “Sinification” in Manchuria and Inner Mongolia as well as Tibet and Xinjiang (Sinkiang, East Turkestan). Russification succeeded partially but backfired in general. Similarly, Sinification succeeded naturally in Manchuria and without much difficulty in Inner Mongolia. But it has backfired and backfired very badly in Tibet and Xinjiang, and may be expected to do so always.

In India, our soft state and indolent corrupt apparatus of political parties constitute nothing like the organized aggressive war-machine that China has tried to make of its state apparatus, and we have much more freedom of all sorts. India does not prohibit or control peasant farmers or agricultural labourers from migrating to or visiting large metropolitan cities; villagers are as free as anyone else to clog up all city life in India with the occasional political rally ~ in fact India probably may not even know how to ban, suppress or repress most of the things Communist China does.

 

 

Hindu traditions were such that as long as you did not preach sedition against the king, you could believe anything ~ including saying, like the Carvaka, that hedonism and materialism were good, spiritualism was bunkum and the priestly class were a bunch of crooks and idiots. Muslim and British rulers in India were not too different ~ yes the Muslims did convert millions by offering the old choice of death or conversion to vanquished people, and there were evil rulers among them but also great and tolerant ones like Zainulabidin of Kashmir and Akbar who followed his example.

 

India’s basic political ethos has remained that unless you preach sedition, you can basically say or believe anything (no matter how irrational) and also pretty much do whatever you please without being bothered too much by government officials. Pakistan’s attempts to impose Urdu on Bengali-speakers led to civil war and secession; North India’s attempts to impose Hindi on the South led to some language riots and then the three-language formula ~ Hindi spreading across India through Bollywood movies instead.

 

 

China proudly says it is not as if there are no declared non-Communists living freely in Beijing, Shanghai etc, pointing out distinguished individual academics and other professionals including government ministers who are liberals, social democrats or even Kuomintang Nationalists. There are tiny state-approved non-Communist political parties in China, some of whose members even may be in positions of influence. It is just that such (token) parties must accept the monopoly and dictatorship of the Communists and are not entitled to take state power. The only religion you are freely allowed to indulge in is the ideology of the State, as that comes to be defined or mis-defined at any time by the Communist Party’s rather sclerotic leadership processes.

 

 

Chinese passports

During China’s Civil War, the Communists apparently had promised Tibet and Xinjiang a federation of republics ~ Mao later reneged on this and introduced his notion of “autonomous” regions, provinces and districts. The current crisis in Tibet reveals that the notion of autonomy has been a complete farce. Instead of condemning the Dalai Lama and repressing his followers, a modern self-confident China can so easily resolve matters by allowing a Dalai Lama political party to function freely and responsibly, first perhaps just for Lhasa’s municipal elections and gradually in all of Tibet. Such a party and the Tibet Communist Party would be adequate for a two-party system to arise. The Dalai Lama and other Tibetan exiles also have a natural right to be issued Chinese passports enabling them to return to Tibet~ and their right to return is surely as strong as that of any Han or Hui who have been induced to migrate to Tibet from Mainland China. Such could be the very simple model of genuine autonomy for Tibet and Xinjiang whose native people clearly do not wish to be assimilated in the same way as Inner Mongolia and Manchuria. India’s federal examples, including the three-language formula, may be helpful. Once Mainland China successfully allows genuine autonomy and free societies to arise in Tibet and Xinjiang, the road to reconciliation with Taiwan would also have been opened.

American Politics: Obama-Clinton Contest Affects the World

American Politics
Contest Between Obama And Clinton Affects The World

by Subroto Roy

First published in The Statesman, Editorial Page Special Article, March 11 2008

In 1968, at the height of the Vietnam War and protests about it, the Democratic Party Convention in Chicago was marked by bloodshed and rioting. The sitting (Democrat) President, Lyndon Johnson, had taken moral responsibility for the war and declined to run for re-election. His widely-respected Vice-President, Hubert Humphrey, was chosen in traditional “smoke-filled rooms” by party elders during the Convention. But the public had witnessed the Convention’s violence, and Humphrey lost to Richard Nixon. In the next election in 1972, Democrats banned party elders from any role and allowed the nominee to emerge solely from state-by-state primary elections. The result was the anti-war candidate George McGovern, who lost 49 out of 50 States to the incumbent Nixon.

Denver Convention

This year’s Democratic Party Convention in Denver in August may be the first to return to “smoke-filled rooms” (figuratively of course, given the absence of public smoking in modern America especially among “politically correct” Democrats). Almost 800 party elders, consisting of senators, congressional representatives, party functionaries etc, known as “superdelegates” may have to break the near dead heat tie among “primary delegates” who have committed to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama after state-by-state elections.

It was not supposed to have been like this. A year ago Mrs Clinton had seemed an unstoppable favourite not only in the Democratic race but the overall Presidential race too, so much so that the incumbent Bush-Cheney Administration was dropping hints it would not mind seeing a new Clinton Administration taking over its foreign wars. (Mrs Clinton’s husband had become a friend of former President GHW Bush, President Bush’s father, in some relatively rare American nepotism at the top.)

Mrs Clinton had been so confident of being confirmed by now she spent her energy trying to show herself one of the boys, who could be Commander-in-Chief of the world’s largest military and who had voted in favour of Bush’s Iraq war. The idea seemed to be she would show herself just as tough as the Republicans and yet because she was female she would win in November 2008 by reminding women of her gender. Her support among middle-aged white women has remained solid and seems unshakeable but her strategy of being the presumptive anointed “pseudo-incumbent” has failed.

Mr Obama, attracting younger better-educated Democrats as well as the crucial set of cross-party independents and floating Republicans, besides African-Americans like himself, has taken ground Mrs Clinton left undefended; she has been painted by him as Republican-Lite, the archetypal Washington-insider, and a war-monger. Mrs Clinton has indeed recorded the largest contributions of any candidate from America’s “military industrial complex” of weapons’ manufacturers.

Mr Obama went into the recent Ohio and Texas primaries having narrowed large leads against him, and though he lost both has retained a lead in the delegate count. Last weekend he won Wyoming and is likely to win Mississippi — states normally remote in the political landscape but which have acquired significance to “momentum” now. It is expected that even after the major state Pennsylvania votes next month (likely in favour of Mrs Clinton) the contest will not end. A joint ticket could become unstoppable and has been hinted at by the Clintons. But Mr Obama has no reason to be an understudy because if he is not himself the Presidential candidate, it may be better to wait for the 2012 contest than be brushed by the Clinton negatives.

Republicans have surprisingly quickly agreed upon Arizona’s elderly senator John McCain as their candidate out of a raucous field. The single anti-war Republican candidate, Ron Paul, fizzled out. Mr McCain, like his main rivals Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, has been overtly jingoistic, strongly backed the Bush wars and has identified “radical Islamic extremism” as an American enemy. Mr McCain was a POW of the North Vietnamese decades ago and underwent torture, something he has not let anyone forget. His remark that America under him may fight “100 years” in Middle East wars, as well as President Bush’s endorsement of him, may put off a country that has been turning against war and is increasingly anxious about macroeconomics and international trade again.

Mr McCain may have to wait to see who emerges from among the Democrats before he announces his Vice-Presidential running-mate. Usual “ticket-balancing” considerations point to a young conservative or a senior woman or black political figure for obvious reasons.

Thus the Democratic Party leadership now unexpectedly finds itself in a crucial role in the next weeks and months. A raucous divisive Convention in August on the 1968 pattern will leave the Republicans gloating. Current controversy has to do with Michigan and Florida; both held unauthorized primaries ahead of time and were punished by the leadership in not being recognized. Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama both agreed not to campaign there. Will Michigan and Florida “delegates” be recognized and “seated” in Denver? Should they be split equally between the two candidates? Should there be a “do-over” primary via the mail in each now that the race has become heated, and if so, who will pay for it?

The crucial question for the Democratic Party is to decide who may defeat Mr McCain. Mr Obama’s youth, race and Muslim middle name Hussein, will undoubtedly be used by the Republicans to attack him. Mrs Clinton carries a lot of baggage from her husband’s time: there was an unpleasant air of sleaze and mendacity during the entire eight years of Bill’s rule in Washington DC and voters will be wary to allow a re-run of the same. (The 22nd Constitutional Amendment forbids more than eight years for any President, and the idea is novel and untested that a First Lady can run on her own to get around that.)

Israel policy
Mrs Clinton’s foreign and military policy will be quite close to Mr McCain’s in its aggressiveness. Mr Obama opposed the Iraq war and is certain to keep playing that trump-card against both. Mr Obama’s foreign policy “weakness” has to do with being perceived by the pro-Israeli lobby as not hardline enough. He has said clearly he is pro-Israel and strongly so and that he found Israel’s own debate “much more open” than the American one. Mrs Clinton and Mr McCain both pass the “Likud test” with flying colours; Mr Obama’s statement that being pro-Israel is not identical with being “pro-Likud” may mean he does not.

The Democratic Party will have to figure out in its decision between Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama where America’s voters in November 2008 are swinging on the issue of fighting aggressive wars. The other vital issue will be protectionism in international trade ~ some “superdelegates” have already started to demand pledges about trade-policies to “save American jobs”. The world will be affected by who wins between Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama along two important dimensions, viz., whether America will be more likely as a result to (a) launch new wars; (b) become more protectionist in trade.

 

Anarchy in Bengal

Anarchy in Bengal

Intra-Left bandh marks the final unravelling of “Brand Buddha”

First published in The Sunday Statesman, 10 February 2008, Editorial Page Special Article   http://www.thestatesman.net

by

SUBROTO ROY

Once upon a time, not very long ago, there was something called “Brand Buddha”. The basic idea was that the CPI-M had quietly reformed itself, passing the baton from old unreconstructed communists like Jyoti Basu and Harkishan Surjeet to a new generation of pragmatists and modernists represented by Prakash Karat’s JNU coterie at the national level and the smartly dressed bhadralok persona of Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee in Kolkata itself.

Big businessmen and their foreign collaborators were no longer the “comprador bourgeoisie” but rather were allies to whom government subsidies and concessions, especially land, would be and should be granted. The “investment climate” and “work culture” under a CPI-M government would be among the best in India. High employment levels would be the hoped-for result, especially employment for those associated positively with the CPI-M and its friends. The usual set of academics, journalists, film and TV actors, dancers, sportsmen, singers, NRIs etc who were directly or indirectly recipients of the largesse of the West Bengal Government helped to contribute to the idea that a viable political brand had been identified and it represented the unique way forward for the State. “You are either with us or against us” has always been the brief philosophy of communist and fascist parties around the world ~ joining up with Brand Buddha meant you were part of the bandwagon of progress, if you did not join up you would be left behind. (No one thought Brand Buddha could be or would come to be actively opposed.)

At the national level, the old Indira Gandhi-Communist alliance was restored by way of a new one led by Sonia Gandhi. Jyoti Basu had frankly described Sonia as “a housewife” but now that the housewife was running the country and needed the Communists’ help in doing so, the opportunity was not to be missed to extract whatever price was possible. The main broker between 10 Janpath and West Bengal’s Communists was Pranab Mukherjee who was most familiar with the old Indira-style of opportunistic Indian politics, and who was given the mandate of appeasing the Communists with whatever they needed while also being the pointman to make a phone call to his friend Buddhadeb to see to it, e.g., that the CPI-M like everyone else enjoyed the American and Indian air force show at Kalaikunda.

The “enemy” (for, after all, every unholy alliance must have an identifiable enemy) was the wicked old BJP. Everyone from Sonia Gandhi via Pranab Mukherjee to Jyoti Basu would voice the fear that if they did not join hands in socialist secularist unity, the BJP Boogeyman was destined to return to power. And of course the BJP did nothing and had little positive in its record to dissipate those fears. It was indeed filled with old men and it had indeed behaved wickedly while in power. From negligence in the Graham Staines murder in Orissa to the pogrom in Gujarat, there was little to suggest the BJP’s leadership had any clear ideas or principles about right and wrong governance. In office from 1998-2004, its macroeconomic record was woeful, mainly because it knew no better than maintain the same economic bureaucrats as its predecessors, and allow its finance and other economic ministers to be wholly manipulated by big business lobbies. Now when those bureaucrats and big business lobbies created, endorsed and marketed Brand Buddha itself, the BJP found it had been successfully finessed and could hardly speak a word in opposition. If the BJP thinks it can win in 2009 by its discredited leaders merely recycling anti-Muslim or anti-Christian formulae as before, it may be in for a surprise and a disappointment.

Brand Buddha reached its pinnacle when Sonia Gandhi’s Prime Minister endorsed it personally at a big business meeting in Kolkata on 12 January 2005. But the contradiction involved in Sonia Gandhi then giving merely a perfunctory speech on behalf of the West Bengal Congress in the 2006 election campaign could not be covered up and did not escape the notice of her local partymen.

Brand Buddha started to unravel when Mamata Banerjee realized that all the CPI-M really had was a brand being marketed, not something based on any new and fresh political and economic reality. Mamata has never accepted Sonia’s right to lead the Congress which is what had led to the Trinamul breaking away ~ at the same time, even when she was allied to the BJP, no one could accuse her of being anti-Muslim or anything but secular in her political identity. Her three-week long fast over Singur blocked Metro Channel and riveted the country’s political attention while TV broadcasts of the police-behaviour at Singur acted as a signal to the people of Nandigram to prepare for the same or worse.

The fact the Nandigram peasants who feared losing their land were mostly Muslim caused the central Sonia-Pranab-Buddhadeb myth to explode that only they stood to protect Muslims from the BJP. Once that myth had exploded, the fact the emperor was naked came to be seen by all. There never had been a viable political or economic product behind the brand that was being so heavily advertised and endorsed. If Buddhadeb and his party had been genuinely confident of possessing a constructive new economic policy for West Bengal, they should have transparently and honestly discussed it in detail and gone to the people to ask for a mandate on it before the 2006 elections.

Or when the issue boiled over and Mamata went on her fast at the end of 2006, Buddhadeb could have dissolved the Assembly and gone for fresh elections asking for a specific mandate from Bengal’s voters. Instead, the Chief Minister or his senior ministers not once found the need or courage to address all of West Bengal’s people on television even though the State came to be rocked by violence, mayhem and tragedy – hardly a climate for investment and new employment.

2007 saw the CPI-M and its New Delhi Congress friends being revealed to be bunglers, who could not cope with things as small as Rizwanur’s love-marriage or Taslima’s writings except with heavy-handed repression. The CPI-M’s own unions had crippled their own Government and the State before with bandhs, but not until the Cooch Behar firings has the anarchy become complete. The Forward Bloc protesters were, after all, merely asking for implementation of Sonia Gandhi’s favourite scheme of rural employment guarantees! Anarchy is the absence of government and when a government is so divided that its members cannot decide if they are the government or the opposition, it has to be said there is an absence of government.

Recovery requires candour which in turn requires honesty and introspection, all of which may be qualities too difficult to find. What Brand Buddha could have and should have been about is this: the CPI-M cutting waste, fraud and abuse of publicly owned resources from all the organs, departments and projects of the West Bengal Government that they have controlled for decades, and drastically improving the productivity of all those receiving State government wages or contracts. Real governance does not require any phony advertising because success advertises itself.

Our Dismal Politics: Will Independent India Survive Until 2047? (from 2008)

Our Dismal Politics
Will Independent India Survive Until 2047?

By SUBROTO ROY

First published in The Statesman Editorial Page, Special Article, Feb 1 2008

Mayawati and Narendra Modi are both in their 50s. So are the current leaders of Russia, Germany, Britain, France, the USA. No country, not even Communist Party China, is as pretentiously corrupt as ours in allowing a whole generation to be bred of “babalog” politicians among children of dead politicians or existing elderly politicians in their 70s and 80s. These babalog, Rahul Gandhi pre-eminent among them, are usually in their late 30s or early 40s. Having developed no useful marketable skills in life nor done anything worthwhile or creative, they have tended to arbitrage the political positions of their parents (whether departed or living) into gaining access and advantage in Delhi or the State capitals. Some nepotism is being seen in the USA with the Bush and Clinton families but nobody had heard of a Putin, Merkel or Sarkozy before they won their way into political power.

Inheriting advantage

The Indian phenomenon of the inheritance of advantage is also seen in organised business, in Bollywood and in journalism, which, like our politics, tend to be sold via TV. Academic institutions and the civil and military services are not far behind although there the phenomenon more usually involves exporting adult children (and bank accounts) especially to the USA or UK or Australia, and then making annual trips abroad during the hot summer months to be able to tell the neighbours about later.

The idea that the future of Indian politics is in the hands of a babalog GenNext is sheer nonsense and fantasy. The victories of Mayawati and Modi were also defeats of the expectations raised by Rahul Gandhi’s Congress. There is a continuity of years between someone like Sonia Gandhi and her children which implies there can be no discontinuous jump from Sonia to Rahul in the leadership of the Congress. In between, as it were, are people like Kamal Nath among “Friends of Sanjay” or Mani Shankar Aiyar (a solitary Rajivist), both of whom have won seats in the Lok Sabha unlike Sonia’s current elderly PM. If Sonia Gandhi devolves political power to her son who then leads the Congress into another defeat, of which UP and Gujarat have been examples, there will be a revolt among senior middle-aged politicians in the Congress, and the Congress may splinter into a Right Faction and Left Faction leaving Rajiv Gandhi’s family to look after the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation which is what they should have been doing in the first place rather than playing at Indian politics.

A Congress disintegration may or may not finally cause a useful bipolarisation in Indian politics because Indian politics has not only an economic dimension, it has a social or communal dimension too. Besides being (ostensibly) pro-poor or anti-poor, you can be either “Islamophilic” or “Islamophobic” ~ i.e. either pro-Muslim “secularist” /”pseudo-secularist”/minorityist, or anti-Muslim “communalist”/ “fascist”/majority communitarian.

Narasimha Rao cleverly manipulated the median parliamentary vote along these two dimensions so as to maintain a weak Government in power for five years by seeming to ally with the BJP on economic issues and seeming to ally with Leftists on social issues. If the Congress splits after another major defeat caused by Sonia-Rahul incompetence, with the Right Faction joining hands with whatever the BJP morphs into, and the Left Faction joining hands with whatever the CPI-M and CPI morph into, the central question will become which side of the split along the economic dimension holds the median voter along the pro-Muslim/anti-Muslim social dimension.

The BJP remains as dreadful and unscientific a gathering as it has been always without displaying the slightest creative trace of being able to evolve into a serious Conservative Party that India remains in desperate need of. AB Vajpayee and LK Advani led it into electoral defeat but that was not enough for their patriarchy to be disturbed by competent new younger people. In any case, the BJPs more articulate better-educated members in their 50s and 60s are unable to command nation-wide respect nor, with the exception of Modi, are they able to win an election on their own steam. The idea that e.g. Pramode Mahajan’s son could “succeed” him on the 10 JanPath pattern fortunately self-exploded. The best the BJP could do was to choose an inarticulate member as its nominal head while the patriarchy continued unchanged in its backward communalised thinking. Its RSS parent occasionally shows a little savant-like intelligence but generally remains in mental and physical regression.

As for the so-called Left, its multi-dimensional hypocrisy and incompetence has been permanently exposed in the heartland of what passes for Indian communism, Bengal. After the demise of the USSR and transition of Communist China towards Capitalism/ Fascism, there has been no real reason why the CPI and CPI-M cannot merge into one and then renounce together their retrograde ideology in favour of becoming a genuine Social Democratic and Labour Party representing working people and the poor. But that, like any corporate merger, would mean administrative redundancies, retrenchment and new management, and the last thing Stalinist politburo members like is the idea of losing their Rajya Sabha sinecures (in Russia and China they lost their heads but Indian conditions are kinder, gentler, more non-violent).

Besides the Congress, BJP and “Left”, most other parties in India revolve around the whims, personality and IQ of some single local political warlord/warlady. The Naxals and other extremists, including Hindu and Muslim religious terrorists, at least make some pretence at representing political interests of some sections of the people; there is thus at least a slight authenticity about them, no matter how disengaged their thought processes may be from realities around them.

Endless deficit finance

The 2008 Budget or the 2009 General Election seem likely to remain in the grip of all such dramatis personae permanently on the Indian stage, and no new real creative constructive force seems likely to appear. Every political misdemeanour will be paid for by endless deficit finance and money-printing, the accounts and auditing of all public institutions shall remain in a shambles while private pockets of the heads of public institutions come to be lined with gold, the armed forces shall be ready to fight their Pakistani counterparts while deferring to any more formidable adversary, rich business people will continue with their grotesque conspicuous consumption, young people graduating from India’s pampered institutions of tertiary education will continue to line up outside foreign embassies to seek hope and escape.

Can India survive as an independent democratic republic for 100 years after 1947, let alone be a country where all citizens are reasonably free and comfortable? A worst-case scenario may see North India in endless conflict with a chaotic Pakistan, Eastern India hived off under Beijing’s influence, and peninsular India from Surat to Vizag being Western-dominated with “SEZs” on the pattern of pre-communist Coastal China. The failure of our elite classes to provide healthy creative governance over generations must inevitably result in the putrefaction of our body politic.

(Author’s Note: The graph that accompanied this article is published elsewhere here under the title “Median Voter Model of India’s Electorate”.)

Lessons from the 1962 War: there are distinct Tibetan, Chinese and Indian points of view that need to be mutually comprehended (2007)

Prefatory Note: This is part of a series of articles published in The Statesman since October 2007 and republished here, viz., Understanding China, India-USA Interests, China’s India Aggression, Surrender or Fight?, China’s Commonwealth, Nixon & Mao vs India, China’s India Example and China’s Force and Diplomacy. See https://independentindian.com/2009/09/19/my-ten-articles-on-china-tibet-xinjiang-taiwan-in-relation-to-india/

 

 

Lessons from the 1962 War

Beginnings of a solution to the long-standing border problem: there are distinct Tibetan, Chinese and Indian points of view that need to be mutually comprehended.

SUBROTO ROY

First published in The Sunday Statesman, January 13 2008,  Editorial Page Special Article

WAR is an existential experience from which nations emerge altered, reflective and sometimes more mature. Germany tried to purge anti-Jewish hatred, Japan to adopt pacifism, Britain to break class-structures, Russia to explode Stalin’s cult. America learnt little from its Vietnam debacle, creating new tactics and technologies to reduce American casualties in war but not showing any improved capacity to comprehend the world beyond its shores and borders.

India after the 1962 defeat by Mao’s China learnt less than was possible and necessary to do. The Government’s official history concluded: “In a fundamental sense, the origins of the 1962 Sino-Indian conflict lay in Chinese expansionism and occupation of Tibet. The issue got further aggravated due to failure of the Chinese to win over the Tibetans. Indian asylum to the Dalai Lama raised Chinese suspicions about ultimate Indian intentions. On the other hand, India, while tacitly accepting the Chinese occupation of Tibet through a treaty in 1954, failed to obtain any quid pro quo on the border issue.” This is true enough but a deeper probe is also possible.

India’s 20th Century political and intellectual leadership may have grossly failed to comprehend critical world events in a realistic manner, specifically Vladimir Ulyanov’s German-assisted Bolshevik coup d’etat, the Kuomintang and Maoist takeovers in China, as well as India’s own struggle for Independence. After BG Tilak, Annie Besant, GK Gokhale and other founders of Indian nationalism passed from the scene, leaders arose like MK Gandhi, MA Jinnah, SC Bose and J Nehru who tended to be consumed, to lesser or greater extent, by their own hubris and were less able to see India’s fortunes and capacities in context of a larger world. None had military, administrative or public finance experience needed for practical government; instead there arose almost a new hereditary caste of the “professional politician” who has no other vocation or anything better to do in life. Nazi-admirers like Mashriqi and Rahmat Ali among Muslims and the Mahasabha and RSS among Hindus also lent mainstream Indian nationalism a harsh distasteful colouration.

Czechoslovakia’s great nationalist Masaryk (who famously denounced Austro-Hungary as a “corrupt, pretentious, senseless relic”) was said to be “a leader who planned further ahead than his contemporaries, understood the corroding effects of power, the vital need of restraint in the ruler, and above all the need for taking the nation into his confidence, educating it in the sense of drawing out all its innate qualities and sharing its manifold aspirations” (Seton-Watson). India’s clear-headed statesmen of that calibre were not among its most visible or ambitious. Vallabhbhai Patel, MAK Azad, C Rajagopalachari and others were left on the sidelines of free India’s politics ~ as Plato predicted, the genuine pilot of the ship of state will be hardly invited to take its wheel nor even want to do so.

Nehru alone, as chosen by Gandhi, came to wield actual power in the 1950s, having maneuvered Rajendra Prasad to being President. And Nehru, besotted in middle age with a married British woman, seemed awestruck by appearance of a victorious Maoist communism in China just as he had been adoring of Stalin’s Russia two decades earlier. The Congress’s friends among India’s official Communists and fellow-travelers never had much original indigenous grassroots support and always looked abroad for guidance. Non-alignment needed to be made of sterner stuff.

Nehru’s flawed management of the relationship with Communist China included not merely choosing a favourite like Krishna Menon to head India’s military, but also imagining himself a competent world diplomatist. Girja Shankar Bajpai would have been far superior as India’s first Foreign Minister. In 1952, Bajpai, then Governor of Bombay, wrote to Nehru saying India should inform Zhou Enlai the McMahon Line was firm in law and non-negotiable.

Was the McMahon Line firm and just? Nehru was no Curzon but it was as a Curzonian imperialist that Mao and Zhou saw him. All Chinese, whether Communist or Nationalist, chafed at the way the Manchu-dynasty’s Empire had been carved up. “China is our India” was Czarist Russia’s intent towards China itself. China had an awful political and military history from when foreign depredations began in the 1840s all the way until the Mao-Zhou era ended in the 1970s. Indeed China’s polity between the 1840s and 1940s suffered far greater chaos and anarchy than India’s in the same period.

From a Chinese standpoint, Younghusband’s diplomatic and military invasion of Gyantze and Lhasa in 1903-1904 was an insult they had been unable to militarily confront. Curzon sent Younghusband’s expedition because there appeared to be Russian intrigues with the Dalai Lama via the Russian/Mongolian agent Dorjiev who had transmitted Russian ideas of extending its new Siberian railway to Lhasa and posting Cossack soldiers there. The Russians seemed to want to adopt the Dalai Lama given his religious influence over Mongolia. The British were alarmed and determined to annihilate the influence of Dorjiev which they did. Thence came the Anglo-Russian Treaty of 1907 which specified British and Russian spheres of influence in Iran and Afghanistan, and stated Tibet would be dealt with internationally only through the Chinese Empire. The McMahon Line, as a recognition of the traditional boundary, flowed naturally from the legitimacy of the Anglo-Russian Treaty. As for Sinkiang, though a Chinese province since 1884 it came to be ruled by warlords under Russian influence.

The Mao-Zhou war machine was determined to take over and militarily hold both Sinkiang and Tibet as an assertion of new China’s self-definition against Russia and Britain; hence their denunciation of Nehru as a pawn first of Britain and then of Russia. China building a road surreptitiously between Sinkiang and Tibet through Aksai Chin was reminiscent of Russia’s coercive behaviour against China in building the Trans-Siberian Railway through Chinese territory to Vladivostok. At worst, the Indians would have to admit that erstwhile J&K State since October 1947 had become an ownerless entity whose unclaimed territory had been carved up by force by the new Pakistan, new India and new China.

From an Indian standpoint, the traditional recognised boundary placed Aksai Chin clearly in Ladakh and not Tibet. Aksai Chain is a salt pit without “a blade of grass” but for all anyone knows, it could be rich in minerals. Karakorum Pass is also newly valuable to the Chinese as they seek to develop a land-route from Baluchistan’s Gwadar Port through Pakistan to China. If India has lost Aksai Chin and Karakorum Pass by force of arms without compensation, force of arms may be the only means of retrieval. Due compensation from China could be Chumbi Valley between Sikkim and Bhutan, and China seems once to have mentioned mutual perpetual lease of Aksai Chin and Chumbi Valley.

From a Tibetan point of view, the Amban representing the Chinese Emperor was driven out of Lhasa in 1912 and Tibet was independent of China for 38 years. Tibet has as much of a claim to be independent of China as Poland or Ukraine have had to be of Russia. As for the McMahon Line, it is indeed legally non-negotiable between China and India as it flowed directly out of the Anglo-Russian Treaty of 1907, and it was under that Treaty that China received international recognition of its formal suzerainty over Tibet since 1720 until that time. Mao once likened Tibet to the palm of a hand with Ladakh, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and Assam as five fingers. Modern China must decide between such a metaphor of Maoist expansionism (which India would have to militarily resist) and joining the world of international law created since Grotius. Democratic conditions in Tibet would also have to be insisted upon so the Dalai Lama and other Tibetans may return home from India in peace and freedom.

Sonia’s Lying Courtier with Postscript 25 Nov 2007, & Addendum 30 June 2014

30th June 2014

“Sonia’s Lying Courtier” (see below) has now lied again! In a ghost-written 2014 book published by a prominent publisher in Delhi!

He has so skilfully lied about himself the ghost writer was probably left in the dark too about the truth.

**The largest concealment has to do with his Soviet connection: he is fluent in Russian, lived as a privileged guest of the state there, and before returning to the Indian public sector was awarded in the early 1970s a Soviet degree, supposedly an earned doctorate in Soviet style management!**

How do I know? He told me so personally! His Soviet degree is what allowed himself to pass off as a “Dr” in Delhi power-circles for decades, as did many others who were planted in that era. He has also lied about himself and Rajiv Gandhi in 1990-1991, and hence he has lied about me indirectly.

In 2007 I was gentle in my exposure of his mendacity because of his advanced age. Now it is more and more clear to me that exposing this directly may be the one way for Sonia and her son to realise how they, and hence the Congress party, were themselves influenced without knowing it for years…

25 November 2007

Two Sundays ago in an English-language Indian newspaper, an elderly man in his 80s, advertised as being “the Gandhi family’s favourite technocrat” published some deliberate falsehoods about events in Delhi 17 years ago surrounding Rajiv Gandhi’s last months. I wrote at once to the man, let me call him Mr C, asking him to correct the falsehoods since, after all, it was possible he had stated them inadvertently or thoughtlessly or through faulty memory. He did not do so. I then wrote to a friend of his, a Congress Party MP from his State, who should be expected to know the truth, and I suggested to him that he intercede with his friend to make the corrections, since I did not wish, if at all possible, to be compelled to call an elderly man a liar in public.

 

That did not happen either and hence I am, with sadness and regret, compelled to call Mr C a liar.

 

The newspaper article reported that Mr C’s “relationship with Rajiv (Gandhi) would become closer when (Rajiv) was out of power” and that Mr C “was part of a group that brainstormed with Rajiv every day on a different subject”. Mr C has reportedly said Rajiv’s “learning period came after he left his job” as PM, and “the others (in the group)” were Mr A, Mr B, Mr D, Mr E “and Manmohan Singh” (italics added).

 

In reality, Mr C was a retired pro-USSR bureaucrat aged in his late 60s in September 1990 when Rajiv Gandhi was Leader of the Opposition and Congress President. Manmohan Singh was an about-to-retire bureaucrat who in September 1990 was not physically present in India, having been working for Julius Nyerere of Tanzania for several years.

 

On 18 September 1990, upon recommendation of Siddhartha Shankar Ray, Rajiv Gandhi met me at 10 Janpath, where I handed him a copy of the unpublished results of an academic “perestroika-for-India” project I had led at the University of Hawaii since 1986. The story of that encounter has been told first on July 31-August 2 1991 in The Statesman, then in the October 2001 issue of Freedom First, then in January 6-8 2006, September 23-24 2007 in The Statesman, and most recently in The Statesman Festival Volume 2007. The last of these speaks most fully yet of my warnings against Rajiv’s vulnerability to assassination; this document in unpublished form was sent by me to Rajiv’s friend, Mr Suman Dubey in July 2005, who forwarded it with my permission to the family of Rajiv Gandhi.

 

It was at the 18 September 1990 meeting that I suggested to Rajiv that he should plan to have a modern election manifesto written. The next day, 19 September, I was asked by Rajiv’s assistant V George to stay in Delhi for a few days as Mr Gandhi wished me to meet some people. I was not told whom I was to meet but that there would be a meeting on Monday, 24th September. On Saturday, the Monday meeting was postponed to Tuesday 25th September because one of the persons had not been able to get a flight into Delhi. I pressed to know what was going on, and was told I would meet Mr A, Mr B, Mr C and Mr D. It turned out later Mr A was the person who could not fly in from Hyderabad.

 

The group (excluding Mr B who failed to turn up because his servant had failed to give him the right message) met Rajiv at 10 Janpath in the afternoon of 25th September. We were asked by Rajiv to draft technical aspects of a modern manifesto for an election that was to be expected in April 1991. The documents I had given Rajiv a week earlier were distributed to the group. The full story of what transpired has been told in my previous publications.

 

Mr C was ingratiating towards me after that first meeting with Rajiv and insisted on giving me a ride in his car which he told me was the very first Maruti ever manufactured. He flattered me needlessly by saying that my PhD (in economics from Cambridge University) was real whereas his own doctoral degree had been from a dubious management institute of the USSR. (Handling out such doctoral degrees was apparently a standard Soviet way of gaining influence.) Mr C has not stated in public how his claim to the title of “Dr” arises.

 

Following that 25 September 1990 meeting, Mr C did absolutely nothing for several months towards the purpose Rajiv had set us, stating he was very busy with private business in his home-state where he flew to immediately. Mr D went abroad and was later hit by severe illness. Mr B, Mr A and I met for luncheon at New Delhi’s Andhra Bhavan where the former explained how he had missed the initial meeting. Then Mr B said he was very busy with his house-construction, and Mr A said he was very busy with finishing a book for his publishers on Indian defence, and both begged off, like Mr C and Mr D, from any of the work that Rajiv had explicitly set our group. My work and meeting with Rajiv in October 1990 has been reported previously.

 

Mr C has not merely suppressed my name from the group in what he has published in the newspaper article two Sundays ago, he has stated he met Rajiv as part of such a group “every day on a different subject”, another falsehood. The next meeting of the group with Rajiv was in fact only in December 1990, when the Chandrashekhar Government was discussed. I was called by telephone in the USA by Rajiv’s assistant V George but I was unable to attend, and was briefed later about it by Mr A.

 

When new elections were finally announced in March 1991, Mr C brought in Mr E into the group in my absence (so he told me), perhaps in the hope I would remain absent. But I returned to Delhi and between March 18 1991 and March 22 1991, our group, including Mr E (who did have a genuine PhD), produced an agreed-upon document. That document was handed over by us together in a group to Rajiv Gandhi at 10 Janpath the next day, and also went to the official political manifesto committee of Narasimha Rao, Pranab Mukherjee and M. Solanki.

 

Our group, as appointed by Rajiv on 25 September 1990, came to an end with the submission of the desired document to Rajiv on 23 March 1991.

 

As for Manmohan Singh, contrary to Mr C’s falsehood, Manmohan Singh has himself truthfully said he was with the Nyerere project until November 1990, then joined Chandrashekhar’s PMO in December 1990 which he left in March 1991, that he had no meeting with Rajiv Gandhi prior to Rajiv’s assassination but rather did not in fact enter Indian politics at all until invited by Narasimha Rao several weeks later to be Finance Minister. In other words, Manmohan Singh himself is on record stating facts that demonstrate Mr C’s falsehood.

 

The economic policy sections of the document submitted to Rajiv on 23 March 1991 had been drafted largely by myself with support of Mr E and Mr D and Mr C as well. It was done over the objections of Mr B, who had challenged me by asking what Manmohan Singh would think of it. I had replied I had no idea what Manmohan Singh would think of it, saying I knew he had been out of the country on the Nyerere project for some years.

 

Mr C has deliberately excluded my name from the group and deliberately added Manmohan Singh’s instead. What explains this attempted falsification of facts – reminiscent of totalitarian practices in communist countries? Manmohan Singh was not involved by his own admission, and as Finance Minister told me so directly when he and I were introduced in Washington DC in September 1993 by Siddhartha Shankar Ray, then Indian Ambassador to the USA.

 

A possible explanation for Mr C’s mendacity is as follows: I have been recently publishing the fact that I repeatedly pleaded warnings that I (even as a layman on security issues) perceived Rajiv Gandhi to have been insecure and vulnerable to assassination. Mr C, Mr B and Mr A were among the main recipients of my warnings and my advice as to what we as a group, appointed by Rajiv, should have done towards protecting Rajiv better. They did nothing — though each of them was a senior man then aged in his late 60s at the time and fully familiar with Delhi’s workings while I was a 35 year old newcomer. After Rajiv was assassinated, I was disgusted with what I had seen of the Congress Party and Delhi, and did not return except to meet Rajiv’s widow once in December 1991 to give her a copy of a tape in which her late husband’s voice was recorded in conversations with me during the Gulf War.

 

Mr C has inveigled himself into Sonia Gandhi’s coterie – while Manmohan Singh went from being mentioned in our group by Mr B to becoming Narasimha Rao’s Finance Minister and Sonia Gandhi’s Prime Minister. If Rajiv had not been assassinated, Sonia Gandhi would have been merely a happy grandmother today and not India’s purported ruler. India would also have likely not have been the macroeconomic and political mess that the mendacious people around Sonia Gandhi like Mr C have now led it towards.

 

POSTSCRIPT: The Congress MP was kind enough to write in shortly afterwards; he confirmed he “recognize(d) that Rajivji did indeed consult you in 1990-1991 about the future direction of economic policy.”   A truth is told and, furthermore, the set of genuine Rajivists in the present Congress Party is identified as non-null.

 

See also

https://independentindian.com/2014/07/03/much-as-i-might-love-russiaengland-france-america-i-despise-their-spies-local-agents-affecting-poor-indias-policies-memo-to-pm-modi-mr-jaitley-mr-doval-the-new-govt-of-india-bew/

https://independentindian.com/thoughts-words-deeds-my-work-1973-2010/rajiv-gandhi-and-the-origins-of-indias-1991-economic-reform/did-jagdish-bhagwati-originate-pioneer-intellectually-father-indias-1991-economic-reform-did-manmohan-singh-or-did-i-through-my-e/

Understanding China (2007)

Understanding China

The World Needs to Ask China to Find Her True Higher Self

by Subroto Roy

First published in The Statesman, October 22, 2007, Editorial Page Special Article

The most important factors explaining China’s progress since the deaths of Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai have been the spread and quick absorption of modern Western technology under conditions of relative peace and tranquillity. The “capitalist road” came to be taken after all and the once-denounced Liu Shaoqui was posthumously rehabilitated by his shrewd old friend Deng Xiaoping.

To be sure, the new technology itself has combined with democratic hatred felt by young Chinese against the corrupt elitist police-state gerontocracy, and this produced first a Wei Jingsheng and Democracy Wall and later the Tiananmen Square protests. There have been also in recent years many thousands of incidents of peasants resisting State-sponsored brutality, fighting to prevent their lands being stolen in the name of purported capitalist industrialisation, in an economy where, as in India, land is an appreciating asset and the paper-currency remains weak because inflation by money-printing is the basis of public finance. China’s multitudinous domestic tensions continue to boil over as if in a cauldron, and it seems inevitable Chinese Gorbachevs and Yeltsins will one day emerge from within the Communist Party to try to begin the long political march towards multiparty democracy and a free society ~ though of course they may fail too, and China will remain condemned to being a dictatorship of one sort or other for centuries more.

Absence of war

What has been seen in recent decades is the relative absence of war. The last military war the Chinese fought was a month-long battle against fellow-Communist Vietnamese in 1979, after Vietnam had run over and destroyed the Chinese (and Western) backed Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Before that, fellow-Communists of the USSR were fought in a border war in 1969. Before that was the border-war with India in 1959-1963 and occupation of Tibet 1950-1959.

The really savage, fierce large-scale fighting in 20th Century Chinese history was seen in the Second Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945, the Civil War of 1945-1949 and the Korean War of 1950-1953. The occupation of Tibet and fighting against India resulting from Tibet’s occupation were really, from a Chinese Communist point of view, merely light follow-ups to those major wars of the Mao-Zhou era, especially fighting the USA and UN in Korea. Peaceful Tibet and naïve non-violent India stood no chance against the aggressive highly experienced Mao-Zhou war-machine at the time.

It may even be that Mao could live only with incessant external tumult ~ after fighting military wars, he orchestrated domestic conflicts in the Little and Great Leap Forward of 1949-1963 and Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution of 1964-1969, all among the failures of a cruel ill-educated man who led his people into social, political and economic disaster from which trauma they have been slowly recovering over the last thirty years.

Today, Communist China’s military is geared to fight the non-Communist Chinese of Taiwan in a continuation of the Civil War. It seems unlikely there will be an actual invasion for the simple reason that Taiwan, though much smaller, may not suffer eventual defeat but instead inflict a mortal wound upon invading forces. Mao succeeded in driving Chiang Kaishek across the Taiwan Straits but it is post-Chiang Taiwan that displays the model of how strong, prosperous, democratic and self-confident Chinese people really can strive to be in the modern world. Everyone agrees Taiwan and China must one day unite ~ the interesting question is whether Taiwan will get absorbed into China or whether China shall take Taiwan as its new model! Just as Liu Shaoqi had the last word over Mao on the question of taking the capitalist road, Chiang Kaishek may yet have the last word over Mao on the best constitutional method for modern China’s governance.

Peculiarly enough, China’s Kuomintang and Communists were both allies of Russian Bolshevism (not unlike India’s Congress Party and Communists). Sun Yatsen’s collaboration with Comintern’s founders began as early as 1921. By 1923 there was a formal agreement and Stalin sent Gruzenberg (alias Borodin) to China as an adviser, while Sun sent many including Chiang to Russia on learning expeditions. “In reorganising the party, we have Soviet Russia as our model, hoping to achieve a real revolutionary success”, said Sun hopefully. But by March 1926, Sun’s successor Chiang, had begun purging Communists from the Kuomintang-Communist alliance; in July 1927 Borodin returned to Russia after failing at reconciliation; and by July 1928 Chiang had unified China under his own leadership, and Moscow had repudiated the Kuomintang and ordered Chinese Communists to revolt, starting the Civil War and instability that invited the vicious Japanese aggression and occupation.

China’s problems today with Taiwan and with Tibet (and hence with India) will not come to be resolved until China looks hard in the mirror and begins to resolve her problems with herself. No major country today possesses a more factually distorted image of its own history, politics and economics than does China since the Communist takeover of 1949. “Protect the country, destroy the foreigner” was the motto of the Boxer revolts in 1900, a natural defensive reaction to the depredations and humiliations that Manchu-dynasty China suffered at the hands of the British, French, Germans, Russians, Japanese etc for more than a century. The Boxer motto seemed to implicitly drive Mao, Deng and his modern successors too ~ hence the “One China” slogan, the condemnation of “splittism” etc. But the ideology that Mao, Liu, Deng et al developed out of Stalin, Lenin and Marx seems base and stupid when it is unsentimentally compared to the great political philosophy and ethics of ancient China, which emerged out of wise men like Mo Tzu, Meng Ko (Mencius) and the greatest genius of them all, K’ung Fu Tzu, Confucius himself, undoubtedly among the few greatest men of world history.

Tibet

India has not been wrong to acknowledge Outer Tibet as being under China’s legal suzerainty nor in encouraging endogenous political reform among our Tibetan cousins. The Anglo-Russian treaty of 1907 undertook that Tibet would not be dealt with except through China, and the Indian Republic has been the legal successor of British India. Lhasa may be legitimately under Beijing as far as international relations goes ~ the more profound question is whether Beijing’s Communists since 1949 have not been themselves less than legitimate, and if so whether they can now transform themselves in the post Mao-Zhou era through good deeds towards greater legitimacy.

The root problem between China and India has not been the Tibet-India border which was almost always a friendly one and never a problem even when it remained imprecise and undefined over centuries. The root problem has been the sheer greed and aggressiveness of Chinese Communists ~ who now demand not merely Aksai Chin but also a minimum of some 2000 sq km of Tawang and Takpa Shiri in Arunachal. The CIA’s 1959 map of the region, which would be acceptable to the USA, UK, Taiwan and the international community in general as depicting the lawful position, shows the Communist Chinese territorial claim to be baseless and Indian position to be justified.

Nehru’s India was naïve to approach the Mao-Zhou Communists with the attitude of ahimsa and a common Buddhism. But Mao-Zhou Communism is dead, and the Deng capitalist road itself has lost its ethical way. What India and the world need to do now is ask China or help guide China to find her true higher self. China’s Tibet problem and hence border-dispute with India would have been solved peacefully by application of the ways of great men like Confucius, Mencius and Mo Tzu, who are and will remain remembered by mankind long after petty cruel modern dictators like Mao, Zhou and Deng have been long forgotten. Why China’s Communist bosses despise Taiwan may be because Taiwan has sought to preserve that memory of China’s true higher self.

see also https://independentindian.com/2009/09/19/my-ten-articles-on-china-tibet-xinjiang-taiwan-in-relation-to-india/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHUhy9pJyys

Karl Georg Zinn’s 1992 Review of *Philosophy of Economics* Routledge: 1989 (English translation, 1994, by Nihar Bhattacharya).

Review of  Philosophy of Economics  by Karl Georg Zinn

Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik / Zeitschrift für Wirtschaft und Statistik. Vol. 209, Nr. 5/6 (May 1992), p 573-574

(translated from the German by Nihar Bhattacharya, 1994)

KGZ

daifsa6vwaaxwgp

daiftklv0aaiqj_

“The author intends to discuss some of the central philosophical questions facing modern economic theory. In the foreground is a disposition of the conventional problem of value-independence. Roy sees the value-independence postulate as “Hume’s Scepticism”. He defines Hume’s First and Second Laws on the basis of two signified propositions taken from R. M. Hare.

(1) From positive empirical premises, no normative postulate can be derived; in order to establish obligatory propositions, at least one normative proposition is needed.

(2) In a specified economic context, after all empirical and formal/logical matters are resolved, little scope exists for further intersubjectively valid answers. Valuations beyond this limit are based on the subjective feelings of the economist to the concerned problem.

The scientific/theoretical attitude representative of most economists of the 20th century has been based on this characteristic Humean scepticism. To show this, the author reviews short representative quotations from some of the known names of recent economic theory: Friedman, Myrdal, Lionel Robbins, P. A. Samuelson, Hicks, Joan Robinson, Hayek, Oskar Lange, Schumpeter, Arrow, Blaug, Frank Hahn.

Subsequently, the author raises the point as to what explains this scientific-theoretical approval. A cursory survey of important real and virtual historical developments since antiquity confirms that the essential reason for the reported wide acceptance of a humean position by the economic scientist indeed could have been as a defensive posture against dogmatism and political dictatorship (“It is part of the democratic reaction against medieval authoritarianism” p.45).

Conditioned by their “disgust with the tyrannies and ideologies of the twentieth century”, these authorities tried to protect economic science and guarantee the objectivity of research by resort to moral scepticism.

Hence the author arrives at the starting position of his actual subject: After using Hume to escape from dependence on Plato e tutti quanti, has not value-free economics gotten into a fresh dependence, namely, moral scepticism and its philosophical consequence, moral indifference? Here too a contradiction is shown to arise, namely, that each argumentation against the normative can stand its ground only through normative premises. Thus ultimately something like correct standards become necessary. This however is only a marginal problem compared to a very much more important point: whether the moral scepticism permeating the strict scientific-theoretical position, is not just part of a very much more comprehensive scepticism, which includes Hume’s own criticism of induction as well. But then the same scepticism makes positive theory dubious as well: “Either all of positive economics is attacked with just as much scepticism as anything in normative economics, or we accept one and reject the other when instead there are reasons to think they share the same ultimate grounds and must be accepted or rejected together”(p.47).

The author illustrates the difficulties with radical scepticism in a continental traversal of economic theory: micro and macroeconomics, mathematical economic theory and welfare theory are stations on this tour. A solution of the problem in the strict sense is not given nor could have been expected. But Roy delivers a methodical rule which permits a more exact definition of the limits to which normative discussion can take place precisely and objectively: first, to distinguish always whether an objective answer is at all possible to certain questions, and secondly, to ask who is competent or in the best position to give an answer.

For readers interested in a new, thoroughly subtle discussion of a basic yet customary problem, this book will be profitable reading. However, the author could have argued some matters slightly more elaborately and others less redundantly, and set forth the central idea more clearly through appropriate summaries.”

See also:  https://independentindian.com/thoughts-words-deeds-my-work-1973-2010/introduction-and-some-biography/philosophy-of-economics-on-the-scope-of-reason-in-economic-inquiry-1989/apropos-philosophy-of-economics/
https://independentindian.com/2013/01/31/i-have-a-student-called-suby-roy-reflections-on-frank-hahn-1925-2013-my-master-in-economic-theory/

Against Quackery (2007)

Against Quackery

First published in two parts in The Sunday Statesman, September 23 2007, The Statesman September 24 2007

by

Subroto Roy

Manmohan and Sonia have violated Rajiv Gandhi’s intended reforms; the Communists have been appeased or bought; the BJP is incompetent

WASTE, fraud and abuse are inevitable in the use and allocation of public property and resources in India as elsewhere, but Government is supposed to fight and resist such tendencies. The Sonia-Manmohan Government have done the opposite, aiding and abetting a wasteful anti-economics ~ i.e., an economic quackery. Vajpayee-Advani and other Governments, including Narasimha-Manmohan in 1991-1996, were just as complicit in the perverse policy-making. So have been State Governments of all regional parties like the CPI-M in West Bengal, DMK/ AIADMK in Tamil Nadu, Congress/NCP/ BJP/Sena in Maharashtra, TDP /Congress in Andhra Pradesh, SP/BJP/BSP in Uttar Pradesh etc. Our dismal politics merely has the pot calling the kettle black while national self-delusion and superstition reign in the absence of reason.

The general pattern is one of well-informed, moneyed, mostly city-based special interest groups (especially including organised capital and organised labour) dominating government agendas at the cost of ill-informed, diffused anonymous individual citizens ~ peasants, small businessmen, non-unionized workers, old people, housewives, medical students etc. The extremely expensive “nuclear deal” with the USA is merely one example of such interest group politics.

Nuclear power is and shall always remain of tiny significance as a source of India’s electricity (compared to e.g. coal and hydro); hence the deal has practically nothing to do with the purported (and mendacious) aim of improving the country’s “energy security” in the long run. It has mostly to do with big business lobbies and senior bureaucrats and politicians making a grab, as they always have done, for India’s public purse, especially access to foreign currency assets. Some $300 million of India’s public money had to be paid to GE and Bechtel Corporation before any nuclear talks could begin in 2004-2005 ~ the reason was the Dabhol fiasco of the 1990s, a sheer waste for India’s ordinary people. Who was responsible for that loss? Pawar-Mahajan-Munde-Thackeray certainly but also India’s Finance Minister at the time, Manmohan Singh, and his top Finance Ministry bureaucrat, Montek Ahluwalia ~ who should never have let the fiasco get off the ground but instead actively promoted and approved it.

Cost-benefit analysis prior to any public project is textbook operating procedure for economists, and any half-competent economist would have accounted for the scenario of possible currency-depreciation which made Dabhol instantly unviable. Dr Singh and Mr Ahluwalia failed that test badly and it cost India dearly. The purchase of foreign nuclear reactors on a turnkey basis upon their recommendation now reflects similar financial dangers for the country on a vastly larger scale over decades.

Our Government seems to function most expeditiously in purchasing foreign arms, aircraft etc ~ not in improving the courts, prisons, police, public utilities, public debt. When the purchase of 43 Airbus aircraft surfaced, accusations of impropriety were made by Boeing ~ until the local Airbus representative said on TV that Boeing need not complain because they were going to be rewarded too and soon 68 aircraft were ordered from Boeing!

India imports all passenger and most military aircraft, besides spare parts and high-octane jet fuel. Domestic aviation generates near zero forex revenues and incurs large forex costs ~ a debit in India’s balance of payments. Domestic airline passengers act as importers subsidised by our meagre exporters of textiles, leather, handicrafts, tea, etc. What a managerially-minded PM and Aviation Minister needed to do before yielding to temptations of buying new aircraft was to get tough with the pampered managements and unions of the nationalized airlines and stand up on behalf of ordinary citizens and taxpayers, who, after all, are mostly rail or road-travellers not jet-setters.

The same pattern of negligent policy-behaviour led Finance Minister P. Chidambaram in an unprecedented step to mention in his 2007 Union Budget Speech the private American companies Blackstone and GE ~ endorsing the Ahluwalia/Deepak Parekh idea that India’s forex reserves may be made available to be lent out to favoured private businesses for purported “infrastructure” development. We may now see chunks of India’s foreign exchange reserves being “borrowed” and never returned ~ a monumental scam in front of the CBI’s noses.

The Reserve Bank’s highest echelons may have become complicit in all this, permitting and encouraging a large capital flight to take place among the few million Indians who read the English newspapers and have family-members abroad. Resident Indians have been officially permitted to open bank accounts of US $100,000 abroad, as well as transfer gifts of $50,000 per annum to their adult children already exported abroad ~ converting their largely untaxed paper rupees at an artificially favourable exchange-rate.

In particular, Mr Ratan Tata (under a misapprehension he may do whatever Lakshmi Mittal does) has been allowed to convert Indian rupees into some US$13,000,000,000 to make a cash purchase of a European steel company. The same has been allowed of the Birlas, Wipro, Dr Reddy’s and numerous other Indian corporations in the organised sector ~ three hundred million dollars here, five hundred million dollars there, etc. Western businessmen now know all they have to do is flatter the egos of Indian boxwallahs enough and they might have found a buyer for their otherwise bankrupt or sick local enterprise. Many newcomers to New York City have been sold the Brooklyn Bridge before. “There’s a sucker born every minute” is the classic saying of American capitalism.

The Sonia-Manmohan Government, instead of hobnobbing with business chambers, needed to get Indian corporations to improve their accounting, audit and governance, and reduce managerial pilfering and embezzlement, which is possible only if Government first set an example.

Why have Indian foreign currency reserves zoomed up in recent years? Not mainly because we are exporting more textiles, tea, software engineers, call centre services or new products to the world, but because Indian corporations have been allowed to borrow abroad, converting their hoards of paper rupees into foreign debt. Forex reserves are a residual in a country’s international balance of payments and are not like tax-resources available to be spent by Government; India’s reserves largely constitute foreign liabilities of Indian residents. This may bear endless repetition as the PM and his key acolytes seem impervious to normal postgraduate-level economics textbooks.

Other official fallacies include thinking India’s savings rate is near 32 per cent and that clever bureaucratic use of it can cause high growth. In fact, real growth arises not because of what politicians and bureaucrats do but because of spontaneous technological progress, improved productivity and learning-by-doing of the general population ~ mostly despite not because of an exploitative parasitic State. What has been mismeasured as high savings is actually expansion of bank-deposits in a fractional reserve banking system caused by runaway government deficit-spending.

Another fallacy has been that agriculture retards growth, leading to nationwide politically-backed attempts at land-grabbing by wily city industrialists and real estate developers. In a hyperinflation-prone economy with wild deficit-spending and runaway money-printing, cheating poor unorganised peasants of their land, when that land is an asset that is due to appreciate in value, has seemed like child’s play.

What of the Opposition? The BJP/RSS have no economists who are not quacks though opportunists were happy to say what pleased them to hear when they were in power; they also have much implicit support among organised business lobbies and the anti-Muslim senior bureaucracy. The official Communists have been appeased or bought, sometimes so cheaply as with a few airline tickets here and there. The nonsensical “Rural Employment Guarantee” is descending into the wasteland of corruption it was always going to be. The “Domestic Violence Act” as expected has started to destroy India’s families the way Western families have been destroyed. The Arjun-DMK OBC quota corrodes higher education further from its already dismal state. All these were schemes that Congress and Communist cabals created or wholeheartedly backed, and which the BJP were too scared or ignorant to resist.

And then came Singur and Nandigram ~ where the sheer greed driving the alliance between the Sonia-Manmohan-Pranab Congress and the CPI-M mask that is Buddhadeb, came to be exposed by a handful of brave women like Mamata and Medha.

A Fiscal U-Turn is Needed For India to Go in The Right Economic Direction

Rajiv Gandhi had a sense of noblesse oblige out of remembrance of his father and maternal grandfather. After his assassination, the comprador business press credited Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh with having originated the 1991 economic reform. In May 2002, however, the Congress Party itself passed a resolution proposed by Digvijay Singh explicitly stating Rajiv and not either of them was to be so credited. The resolution was intended to flatter Sonia Gandhi but there was truth in it too. Rajiv, a pilot who knew no political economy, was a quick learner with intelligence to know a good idea when he saw one and enough grace to acknowledge it.

Rule of Law

The first time Dr Manmohan Singh’s name arose in contemporary post-Indira politics was on 22 March 1991 when M K Rasgotra challenged the present author to answer how Dr Singh would respond to proposals being drafted for a planned economic liberalisation that had been authorised by Rajiv, as Congress President and Opposition Leader, since September 1990. It was replied that Dr Singh’s response was unknown and he had been heading the “South-South Commission” for Tanzania’s Julius Nyerere, while what needed to be done urgently was make a clear forceful statement to restore India’s credit-worthiness and the confidence of international markets, showing that the Congress at least knew its economics and was planning to take bold new steps in the direction of progress.

There is no evidence Dr Singh or his acolytes were committed to any economic liberalism prior to 1991 as that term is understood worldwide, and scant evidence they have originated liberal economic ideas for India afterwards. Precisely because they represented the decrepit old intellectual order of statist ”Ma-Bap Sarkari” policy-making, they were not asked in the mid-1980s to be part of a “perestroika-for-India” project done at a foreign university ~ the results of which were received, thanks to Siddhartha Shankar Ray, by Rajiv Gandhi in hand at 10 Janpath on 18 September 1990 and specifically sparked the change in the direction of his economic thinking.

India is a large, populous country with hundreds of millions of materially poor citizens, a weak tax-base, a vast internal and external public debt (i.e. debt owed by the Government to domestic and foreign creditors), massive annual fiscal deficits, an inconvertible currency, and runaway printing of paper-money. It is unsurprising Pakistan’s economy is similar, since it is born of the same land and people. Certainly there have been real political problems between India and Pakistan since the chaotic demobilisation and disintegration of the old British Indian Army caused the subcontinent to plunge into war-like or “cold peace” conditions for six decades beginning with a bloody Partition and civil war in J&K. High military expenditures have been necessitated due to mutual and foreign tensions, but this cannot be a permanent state if India and Pakistan wish for genuine mass economic well-being.

Even with the continuing mutual antagonism, there is vast scope for a critical review of Indian military expenditures towards greatly improving the “teeth-to-tail” ratio of its fighting forces. The abuse of public property and privilege by senior echelons of the armed forces (some of whom have been keen most of all to export their children preferably to America) is also no great secret.

On the domestic front, Rajiv was entirely convinced when the suggestion was made to him in September 1990 that an enormous infusion of public resources was needed into the judicial system for promotion and improvement of the Rule of Law in the country, a pre-requisite almost for a new market orientation. Capitalism without the Rule of Law can quickly degenerate into an illiberal hell of cronyism and anarchy which is what has tended to happen since 1991.

The Madhava Menon Committee on criminal justice policy in July proposed a Hong Kong model of “a single high-tech integrated Criminal Justice complex in every district headquarters which may be a multi-storied structure, devoting the ground floor for the police station including a video-installed interrogation room; the first floor for the police-lockups/sub-jail and the Magistrate’s Court; the second floor for the prosecutor’s office, witness rooms, crime laboratories and legal aid services; the third floor for the Sessions Court and the fourth for the administrative offices etc…. (Government of India) should take steps to evolve such an efficient model… and not only recommend it to the States but subsidize its construction…” The question arises: Why is this being proposed for the first time in 2007 after sixty years of Independence? Why was it not something designed and implemented starting in the 1950s?

The resources put since Independence to the proper working of our judiciary from the Supreme Court and High Courts downwards have been abysmal, while the state of prisons, borstals, mental asylums and other institutions of involuntary detention is nothing short of pathetic. Only police forces, like the military, paramilitary and bureaucracies, have bloated in size.

Neither Sonia-Manmohan nor the BJP or Communists have thought promotion of the Rule of Law in India to be worth much serious thought ~ certainly less important than attending bogus international conclaves and summits to sign expensive deals for arms, aircraft, reactors etc. Yet Rajiv Gandhi, at a 10 Janpath meeting on 23 March 1991 when he received the liberalisation proposals he had authorized, explicitly avowed the importance of greater resources towards the Judiciary. Dr Singh and his acolytes were not in that loop, indeed they precisely represented the bureaucratic ancien regime intended to be changed, and hence have seemed quite uncomprehending of the roots of the intended reforms ever since 1991.

Similarly, Rajiv comprehended when it was said to him that the primary fiscal problem faced by India is the vast and uncontrolled public debt, interest payments on which suck dry all public budgets leaving no room for provision of public goods.

Government accounts

 


Government has been routinely “rolling over” its domestic debt in the asset-portfolios of the nationalised banks while displaying and highlighting only its new additional borrowing in a year as the “Fiscal Deficit”. More than two dozen States have been doing the same and their liabilities ultimately accrue to the Union too. The stock of public debt in India is Rs 30 trillion (Rs 30 lakh crore) at least, and portends a hyperinflation in the future.

There has been no serious recognition of this since it is political and bureaucratic actions that have been causing the problem. Proper recognition would entail systematically cleaning up the budgets and accounts of every single governmental entity in the country: the Union, every State, every district and municipality, every publicly funded entity or organisation, and at the same time improving public decision-making capacity so that once budgets and accounts recover from grave sickness over decades, functioning institutions exist for their proper future management. All this would also stop corruption in its tracks, and release resources for valuable public goods and services like the Judiciary, School Education and Basic Health. Institutions for improved political and administrative decision-making are needed throughout the country if public preferences with respect to raising and allocating common resources are to be elicited and then translated into actual delivery of public goods and services. Our dysfunctional legislatures will have to do at least a little of what they are supposed to. When public budgets and accounts are healthy and we have functioning public goods and services, macroeconomic conditions would have been created for the paper-rupee to once more become a money as good as gold ~ a convertible world currency for all of India’s people, not merely the metropolitan special interest groups that have been controlling our governments and their agendas.

Posted in Accounting and audit, asymmetric information, Banking, Big Business and Big Labour, BJP, Communists, Congress Party, Deposit multiplication, DMK, Economic Policy, Economic quackery, Economics of Public Finance, Governance, Government accounting, Government Budget Constraint, Government of India, India's Big Business, India's savings rate, India's stock and debt markets, India's 1991 Economic Reform, India's aviation, India's balance of payments, India's Banking, India's Budget, India's Capital Markets, India's communists, India's corporate governance, India's corruption, India's Democracy, India's Economic History, India's Economy, India's Energy, India's Exports, India's Families, India's Foreign Exchange Reserves, India's Foreign Trade, India's Government Budget Constraint, India's Government Expenditure, India's Industry, India's inflation, India's Judiciary, India's Land, India's Macroeconomics, India's Monetary & Fiscal Policy, India's nomenclatura, India's political lobbyists, India's Politics, India's Polity, India's pork-barrel politics, India's poverty, India's Public Finance, India's Reserve Bank, India's State Finances, India's Union-State relations, India-Pakistan peace process, India-US Nuclear Deal, Indira Gandhi, Inflation, Interest group politics, Mamata Banerjee, Manmohan Singh, Mendacity in politics, Non-Resident Indians, Pakistan, Balochistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Political corruption, Political cynicism, Political Economy, Political mendacity, Political Philosophy, Politics, Pork-barrel politics, Power-elites and nomenclatura, Public Choice/Public Finance, Public property waste fraud, Rajiv Gandhi, Reason, Redeposits, Singur and Nandigram, Sonia Gandhi, Unorganised capital markets, Welfare Economics. 2 Comments »

An Open Letter to Professor Amartya Sen about Singur etc (2007)

A letter to Prof. Sen (2007)

First published in The Statesman 31 July 2007, Editorial Page Special Article

Professor Amartya Sen, Harvard University

Dear Professor Sen,

Everyone will be delighted that someone of your worldwide stature has joined the debate on Singur and Nandigram; The Telegraph deserves congratulations for having made it possible on July 23.

I was sorry to find though that you may have missed the wood for the trees and also some of the trees themselves. Perhaps you have relied on Government statements for the facts. But the Government party in West Bengal represents official Indian communism and has been in power for 30 years at a stretch. It may be unwise to take at face-value what they say about their own deeds on this very grave issue! Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and there are many candid communists who privately recognise this dismal truth about themselves. To say this is not to be praising those whom you call the “Opposition” ~ after all, Bengal’s politics has seen emasculation of the Congress as an opposition because the Congress and communists are allies in Delhi. It is the Government party that must reform itself from within sua sponte for the good of everyone in the State.

The comparisons and mentions of history you have made seem to me surprising. Bengal’s economy now or in the past has little or nothing similar to the economy of Northern England or the whole of England or Britain itself, and certainly Indian agriculture has little to do with agriculture in the new lands of Australia or North America. British economic history was marked by rapid technological innovations in manufacturing and rapid development of social and political institutions in context of being a major naval, maritime and mercantile power for centuries. Britain’s geography and history hardly ever permitted it to be an agricultural country of any importance whereas Bengal, to the contrary, has been among the most agriculturally fertile and hence densely populated regions of the world for millennia.

Om Prakash’s brilliant pioneering book The Dutch East India Company and the Economy of Bengal 1630-1720 (Princeton 1985) records all this clearly. He reports the French traveller François Bernier saying in the 1660s “Bengal abounds with every necessary of life”, and a century before him the Italian traveller Verthema saying Bengal “abounds more in grain, flesh of every kind, in great quantity of sugar, also of ginger, and of great abundance of cotton, than any country in the world”. Om Prakash says “The premier industry in the region was the textile industry comprising manufacture from cotton, silk and mixed yarns”. Bengal’s major exports were foodstuffs, textiles, raw silk, opium, sugar and saltpetre; imports notably included metals (as Montesquieu had said would always be the case).

Bengal did, as you say, have industries at the time the Europeans came but you have failed to mention these were mostly “agro-based” and, if anything, a clear indicator of our agricultural fecundity and comparative advantage. If “deindustrialization” occurred in 19th Century India, that had nothing to do with the “deindustrialization” in West Bengal from the 1960s onwards due to the influence of official communism.

You remind us Fa Hiaen left from Tamralipta which is modern day Tamluk, though he went not to China but to Ceylon. You suggest that because he did so Tamluk effectively “was greater Calcutta”. I cannot see how this can be said of the 5th Century AD when no notion of Calcutta existed. Besides, modern Tamluk at 22º18’N, 87º56’E is more than 50 miles inland from the ancient port due to land-making that has occurred at the mouth of the Hooghly. I am afraid the relevance of the mention of Fa Hiaen to today’s Singur and Nandigram has thus escaped me.

You say “In countries like Australia, the US or Canada where agriculture has prospered, only a very tiny population is involved in agriculture. Most people move out to industry. Industry has to be convenient, has to be absorbing”. Last January, a national daily published a similar view: “For India to become a developed country, the area under agriculture has to shrink, urban and industrial land development has to take place, and about 100 million workers have to move out from agriculture into industry and services. This is the only way forward for bringing prosperity to the rural population”.

Rice is indeed grown in Arkansas or Texas as it is in Bengal but there is a world of difference between the technological and geographical situation here and that in the vast, sparsely populated New World areas with mechanized farming! Like shoe-making or a hundred other crafts, agriculture can be capital-intensive or labour-intensive ~ ours is relatively labour-intensive, theirs is relatively capital-intensive. Our economy is relatively labour-abundant and capital-scarce; their economies are relatively labour-scarce and capital-abundant (and also land-abundant). Indeed, if anything, the apt comparison is with China, and you doubtless know of the horror stories and civil war conditions erupting across China in recent years as the Communist Party and their businessman friends forcibly take over the land of peasants and agricultural workers, e.g. in Dongzhou.

All plans of long-distance social engineering to “move out” 40 per cent of India’s population (at 4 persons per “worker”) from the rural hinterlands must also face FA Hayek’s fundamental question in The Road to Serfdom: “Who plans whom, who directs whom, who assigns to other people their station in life, and who is to have his due allotted by others?”

Your late Harvard colleague, Robert Nozick, opened his brilliant 1974 book Anarchy, State and Utopia saying: “Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights)”. You have rightly deplored the violence seen at Singur and Nandigram. But you will agree it is a gross error to equate violence perpetrated by the Government which is supposed to be protecting all people regardless of political affiliation, and the self-defence of poor unorganised peasants seeking to protect their meagre lands and livelihoods from state-sponsored pogroms. Kitchen utensils, pitchforks or rural implements and flintlock guns can hardly match the organised firepower controlled by a modern Government.

Fortunately, India is not China and the press, media and civil institutions are not totally in the hands of the ruling party alone. In China, no amount of hue and cry among the peasants could save them from the power of organised big business and the Communist Party. In India, a handful of brave women have managed to single-handedly organise mass movements of protest which the press and media have then broadcast that has shocked the whole nation to its senses.

You rightly say the land pricing process has been faulty. Irrelevant historical prices have been averaged when the sum of discounted expected future values in an inflationary economy should have been used. Matters are even worse. “The fear of famine can itself cause famine. The people of Bengal are afraid of a famine. It was repeatedly charged that the famine (of 1943) was man-made.” That is what T. W. Schultz said in 1946 in the India Famine Emergency Committee led by Pearl Buck, concerned that the 1943 Bengal famine should not be repeated following dislocations after World War II. Of course since that time our agriculture has undergone a Green Revolution, at least in wheat if not in rice, and a White Revolution in milk and many other agricultural products. But catastrophic collapses in agricultural incentives may still occur as functioning farmland comes to be taken by government and industry from India’s peasantry using force, fraud or even means nominally sanctioned by law. If new famines come to be provoked because farmers’ incentives collapse, let future historians know where responsibility lay.

West Bengal’s real economic problems have to do with its dismal macroeconomic and fiscal position which is what Government economists should be addressing candidly. As for land, the Government’s first task remains improving grossly inadequate systems of land-description and definition, as well as the implementation and recording of property rights.

With my most respectful personal regards, I remain

Yours ever

 

Suby

Lal Masjid ≠ Golden Temple (2007)

Lal Masjid ≠ Golden Temple

Wide differences are revealed between contemporary Pakistan and India by these two superficially similar military assaults on armed religious civilians

By SUBROTO ROY

First published in The Sunday Statesman, July 15 2007, ww.thestatesman.net, Editorial Page Special Article

There is a superficial similarity between what happened in Pakistan’s “Operation Silence/ Sunrise” at the Lal Masjid a few days ago and what happened in India’s “Operation Blue Star” at the Golden Temple in May-June 1984. In both cases, heavily armed religiously motivated civilians were holed up in a place of worship, and were laid siege to and then killed or arrested by an assault force sent by the national government.

That, however, is about as far as the similarity goes, and it would be a gross error to equate the two and suppose General Musharraf has been only doing something similar to what Indira Gandhi did twenty three years ago. In fact, revisiting the Golden Temple case allows a vivid contrast to be drawn between the very different kinds of national societies modern India and Pakistan have become.

Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was an unexceptional preacher who shot into prominence and fame after first being used by Sanjay Gandhi and Zail Singh in Punjab politics, and later causing the Akali Dal itself to become more communal in nature. Bhindranwale was initially set up by the Sanjay-Zail Congress Party in 1978 to oppose the heretic Nirankari sect, in an attempt to make the Congress gain local electoral support relative to the Akalis by seeming more chauvinistic and less secular in outlook. By July 1982, Bhindranwale, whose associates had been implicated by the police in a number of murders, was holed up in the Golden Temple complex and apparently never left again until he was killed in Operation Blue Star in early June 1984.

Officially, “minimum force” was to be applied in Blue Star: soldiers went in barefoot “with humility in our hearts and prayers on our lips” and sustained heavier casualties than they would have otherwise. Fierce fighting saw Vijayanta tanks and armoured cars being attacked by Chinese-made rocket-propelled grenades that had been smuggled in from the Afghan war. Innocent civilians and surrendered prisoners came to be killed (see Mark Tully and Satish Jacob, Amritsar: Mrs Gandhi’s Last Battle, 1985.)

Yet even so, India’s military had only an instrumental role to play in the Golden Temple siege and assault. The root causes that made the siege inevitable had nothing to do with India’s military itself but were a result of the myopic, ignorant and rather evil nature of our democratic politics during the Indira-Sanjay era ~ something which has continued in slightly milder form to this day throughout the country.

By contrast, the current Pakistani situation is one in which the assault was ordered by the retired head of the Pakistan Army, Pervez Musharraf, who has refused to quit office since being dismissed eight years ago by the last civilian Government headed by Nawaz Sharif. Instead he carried out a coup d’etat against Sharif, and has maintained himself in office claiming, like Ayub Khan, he will one day restore democratic institutions better than the nascent ones he has destroyed. To his credit, Pakistan’s press has been freer than before.

Pakistan’s generals and retired generals have seemed to occasionally grumble, especially when Nawab Bugti of Balochistan was killed, but not do more. This may be because Musharraf has made clear, most poignantly in his January 2002 speech, that any price would be paid by him, including succumbing entirely to American pressure on all matters, so long as the paramount goal of the Pakistan military was maintained, which has been, after all, that of trying by hook or crook to wrest Jammu & Kashmir from India.

J&K has remained the external objective of the Pakistan military as an institution even while, internally, officers have amassed vast personal fortunes over the decades and become major businessmen involved in innumerable foreign collaborations, especially with the Chinese. Musharraf, when asked by an Urdu TV channel not long ago what would happen if India did not relent on J&K, even murmured that war could then continue for a 100 years. Such has been the ostensible driving force of the Pakistan military and the raison d’etre of its domination of all aspects of the economy and society of the country.

At the same time, Pakistan’s military has constituted an Anglo-American reserve bastion for decades, and been a major destination of Western and Chinese armaments ~ paid for often by soft loans or grants from the Gulfs states and Saudi Arabia where thousands of Pakistani personnel serve to staff Arab militaries. Many commentators (e.g. Ayesha Jalal and WE James and myself in the late 1980s/early 1990s, Husain Haqqani and Ayesha Siddiqa today) have pointed to the smothering effect the military has had on all matters of modern Pakistan’s political economy.

The French diplomatic scholar Frédéric Grare has described the situation bluntly: “The fear of an Islamic threat has been the driving force behind most Western countries’ foreign policies toward Pakistan in recent years. The possibility that violent Islamists will kill President Pervez Musharraf, throw Pakistan into turmoil, take over the country and its nuclear weapons, and escalate regional terrorism has dominated the psychological and political landscape. Such fears have usually led to support of the Pakistani military as the only institution able to contain the danger. But the Islamist threat is neither as great nor as autonomous as many assume. True, Pakistan has experienced more than its share of religious violence, both sectarian and jihadi. But serious law-and-order problems do not mean the fate of the state is at stake. No Islamic organization has ever been in a position to politically or militarily challenge the role of the one and only centre of power in Pakistan: the army. On the contrary, the Pakistani Army has used Islamic organizations for its purposes, both at home and abroad. Islamist organizations balance the power of rival mainstream political parties, preserving the army’s role as national arbiter. The army has nurtured and sometimes deployed violent Islamists in Afghanistan (with US support at first), Kashmir, and other hot spots on the subcontinent.” Pakistan: The Myth of an Islamist Peril, Carnegie Endowment, February 2006. Pakistan’s Army may be effectively beyond anyone’s control other than itself. The fox has placed itself in charge of the hen-house.

Indeed, unlike the Indian case during the Bhindranwale period, where religious differences were attempted to be marked between Sikhs and Hindus to allay the perpetual Sikh fear of being reabsorbed into the Hindu fold, the present Pakistani case has had less to do with religious differences than it has to do with the concentration and dispensation of political power. By kidnapping Chinese masseuses in Islamabad, Lal Masjid protestors were hardly making a large religious point but rather one of political powerlessness and lack of voice or exit.

As for the people of J&K on both sides of the Line of Control, if they are objective in their assessment of the histories of India and Pakistan that they see before them, they may conclude once more as they did in the past that, all things considered, their political ancestors especially Sheikh Abdullah and Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad were prescient indeed back in 1947-1951 in pressing the future of J&K with the new secular democratic India and not a Pakistan that remains petulant and militarist. Pakistan’s military has expanded itself using J&K as the ostensible cause, yet the more unpleasant Pakistan’s political economy becomes because of that military, the less attractive modern Pakistan becomes to all the peoples of the subcontinent. As the present author said in these pages on 3 September 2006, “To be a man of destiny, Musharraf must transcend the military-business complex he rules over and reduce its role in Pakistani life, not increase it.”

American Turmoil: A Vice-Presidential Coup — And Now a Grassroots CounterRevolution?

American Turmoil: A Vice-Presidential Coup – And Now a Grassroots CounterRevolution?

First published in

The Statesman, Editorial Page, Special Article June 18 2007

by

Subroto Roy

The Cold War was lost by Soviet and East European communism, and the laurelled victor was the USA along with its loyal allies. Russia and East Europe then transformed themselves. Once there had been Dubcek in the Prague Spring and Sakharov in his apartment. Then there was Lech Walesa the electrician, who, on 14 August 1980, climbed over a fence and led an 18-day strike from which arose the first independent trade union ~ Walesa said “the very basic things: he stood on the shipyard gate and called things by their real names”. Then came Gorbachov and Yeltsin. The despised Berlin Wall was smashed into small saleable bits in November 1989 and people just walked across. That was the end of communism. An unknown student stood down the tanks in Tiananmen Square — though a dozen years earlier the death-watch of Chinese communism had begun with Wei Jingsheng’s “Democracy Wall”. Communist apparatchiks everywhere (except New Delhi and Kolkata) started to unlearn communism; communist societies and economies began to be placed on a road to health and taken off the road to misery.

Winner’s curse

What happened to the victors? Germany quietly unified. Italy’s politics stabilised a little. France achieved its wish of being undominated in Europe. Britain, already forlorn from loss of empire, was left trying to arbitrage between Europe and America (though there too there was new competition from the Irish Republic).

Some political learning, reconciliation and growth took place in Europe but there was none in America ~ the biggest victor of all, the one country but for whose efforts all of Europe might have become and remained communist. Instead, the USA chose to gorge itself on self-accolades, bloated, then started to choke on its own hubris.

The result is that as the 2008 Presidential election campaign gets underway, and the Second Iraq War is at its peak, America’s polity at its highest level may be in turmoil of a sort not seen since the student revolts at the peak of the Vietnam War.

Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter were an interregnum after the Vietnam and Watergate traumas. It was during the Reagan “restoration” that communism collapsed and Osama bin Laden was befriended. Carter’s military mission to rescue American hostages in Iran notoriously failed; Reagan restored American pride by sending in the US Army’s crack Rangers to defeat an almost non-existent enemy ~ in Grenada. It was the first successful American military action in a long time. But there was also failure in Beirut where Reagan withdrew after 241 US soldiers were killed by a suicide-bomber.

George Bush Sr glided into the Presidency in Reagan’s wake. He felt sure of being re-elected when Saddam’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait gave him a war with which to seal his chances. For his part, Saddam had primly and properly called in the US Ambassador to Iraq, the top career diplomat April Glaspie, and told her he had accounts to settle with Kuwait over the Iran-Iraq war. Glaspie, under instructions of the Bush-Baker State Department, famously told him the USA had no opinion on inter-Arab conflicts. Saddam took this to be a green signal, or at least not a red signal, from America and went ahead with his attack on Kuwait.

The American President worked himself into an angry indignation ~ and soon there were large numbers of American troops in Saudi Arabia, soon Iraq was forced to retreat with thousands slaughtered in a turkey-shoot from the air, soon there would be severe sanctions and bombings by the USA and UK. Bush was sure he would be re-elected in 1992, and indeed he led all the polls ~ except an oddball surprise Ross Perot pulled away his votes, and caused the third man running, a young governor of a minor State, to push through to victory instead. Bill Clinton was as surprised as anyone that he was President of the USA in 1992. Dissimulation and mendacity reached new heights during his time yet he came to be re-elected in 1996.

Osama bin Laden started to rant against his former ally. Remove your troops from our holy land, he said. Clinton and Madelaine (“It’s worth it”) Albright continued to bomb Saddam instead ~ who after all had launched a few backward Scuds at Israel during the First Iraq War of 1991. Somehow or other, Osama and/or someone else then designed the destruction of Manhattan’s tallest buildings on September 11 2001; it remains unclear what projectile hit the Pentagon or exactly what happened over a field in Pennsylvania the same morning. The mass murder of thousands remains unsolved.

America, under Bush’s elder son, attacked Osama’s hosts in Afghanistan (but not so as to upset their common Pakistani friends too much), then turned their really motivated firepower against their old foe, Saddam Hussein. Iraq by the summer of 2003 was destroyed as a nation-state, and today in 2007 under American occupation has been almost wholly destroyed as a culture and a society. The new US Embassy in Baghdad is as large as the Vatican. Fourteen permanent American military bases have been built. The US Government has spoken of moving troops from Saudi Arabia to Iraq, and of being in Iraq for ever on the Korean pattern.

United States history and political culture had never seen a Vice President as being anything more than an invisible silent shadow of the President of the land. That has changed drastically. Indeed in recent months there has been much serious Washington talk of the incumbent Vice President having unlawfully usurped political power from the President himself. Cheney’s people throughout the Bush Administration have been in almost open battle against the official foreign and diplomatic policy of Condoleeza Rice and the professional military represented by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Before the attack on Iraq they had overturned the CIA’s official intelligence assessments. There is a general perception that Cheney’s people have been far shrewder and more experienced of the Washington Beltway than Bush’s.

Attack on Iran?

Now the central issue has been whether to attack Iran, and if so how and when. Cheney’s people and their think-tank friends are determined America must do so, perhaps with a new Netanyahu Government in Israel early in 2008 or sooner. The President was apparently warned by his generals in December 2006 that such an attack would gravely endanger the supply lines of US troops who would face a Shia insurrection in Iraq; that may have been the sole reason no attack occurred, and also one reason for the present infantry “surge”. Three aircraft carrier battle groups in the Persian Gulf indicate a potential strike, and that level of force has been coming and going from there for months.

The main Democratic Presidential candidates, especially Mrs Clinton, have said nuclear weapons are “not off the table” in reference to striking Iran without provocation. Nine out of ten of the Republican Presidential candidates agree. The exception is Ron Paul who has recognised the United States was not intended by its founders to be launching aggressive nuclear war against non-nuclear countries in the 21st Century. The Reagan-era economist Paul Craig Roberts has said such war will leave America more reviled than Hitler’s Third Reich.

A grassroots democratic counter-revolution could be starting to overturn the elitist coup d’etat that may have occurred in Washington. “People power” beat organised State power in many times and places. Can it win here? Or could there be tanks in Dupont Circle forty years after the tanks in Wenceslas Square?

Unhealthy Delhi

Unhealthy Delhi

When will normal political philosophy replace personality cults?

by Subroto Roy

First published in The Statesman, Editorial Page Special Article, June 11 2007,

A decade after Solzhenitsyn’s classic 1962 memoir One day in the life of Ivan Denisovitch, an ambitious young Delhi photographer published a hagiography called A life in the day of Indira Gandhi. Indira was shown gambolling with her little grandchildren, guiding her dutiful daughter-in-law, weeping for her father, greeting her loyal subjects from around India, reprimanding her ingratiating sycophants, imperiously silent during political meetings, smiling and scolding alternately at press conferences, and of course standing in victory at Shimla beside the defeated Bhutto. “Indira is India” the sycophantic slogan went, and the cult of her personality was one of showing her as omniscient and omnipotent in all earthly matters of Indian politics.

She had indeed fought that rarest of things in international law: the just war. Supported by the world’s strongest military, an evil enemy had made victims of his own people. Indira tried patiently on the international stage to avert war, but also chose her military generals well and took their professional judgement seriously as to when to fight if it was inevitable and how to win. Finally she was magnanimous (to a fault) towards the enemy ~ who was not some stranger to us but our own estranged brother and cousin.

It seemed to be her and independent India’s finest hour. A fevered nation was thus ready to forgive and forget her catastrophic misdeeds until that time, like bank-nationalization and the start of endless deficit-finance and unlimited money-printing, a possible cause of monetary collapse today four decades later under Manmohan Singh whose career as an economic bureaucrat began at that time.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao

Modern personality cults usually have had some basis in national heroism. In Indira’s case it was the 1971 war. Hitler, Stalin and Mao were seen or portrayed as war heroes too. Because there has been leadership in time of war or national crisis, nervous anxious masses extend their hopes and delusions to believe such a leader has answers to everything. The propaganda machinery available as part of modern state apparatus then takes over, and when it is met on behalf of the citizenry with no more than a compliant docile ingratiating mass media, the public image comes to be formed of a parental god-like figure who will protect and guide the community to its destiny.

Beneath this public image, the cunning play of self-interest by anonymous underlings in the allocation of public resources continues unabated, and so it is possible some truth attaches to the idea that an individual leader is not as responsible for evil misdeeds or depredations done by “the party” in his/her name.

In the Indian case, hero-worship and ancestor-worship are part of the culture of all our major religions. Hence we have parades of parliamentarians garlanding or throwing flowers and paying obeisance at this or that statue or oil-painting or photograph regularly ~ though as a people we have yet to produce rigorous intellectual biographies of any major figures of our own modern history, comparable to, say, Judith Brown’s work on Gandhi or Ayesha Jalal’s on Jinnah.

Indira continued to dominate our political culture until her assassination more than a decade later, but there was hardly a shred of political or economic good in what she left the country. Her elder son (leaving aside his blunders in Sri Lanka, J&K etc.) did have the sense to initiate fundamental change in his party’s economic thinking when he found a chance to do so in the months before his own assassination.

Rajiv was the son of Feroze Gandhi too and a happy family man; he seemed not to have psychological need for as much of the kind of personality cult his mother clearly loved to indulge in. It is not clear if his widow is today trying to follow his example or his mother’s ~ certainly, the party that goes by the name of Indian National Congress would like to relive for a second time the worst of the Indira personality cult around Sonia Gandhi. And Rahul Gandhi, instead of seeking to develop or display any talent as befits a young man, has shown disconcerting signs of longing for the days of his grandmother’s personality cult to return. He may have been more effective pursuing a normal career in the private sector.

The Congress’s perpetual tendency towards personality cults has extended by imitation to other political parties in New Delhi and the States. Atal Behari Vajpayee at his peak as PM did not find it at all uncomfortable to be portrayed by his sycophants as a wise, heroic and loving father-figure of the nation ~ an image shattered when, immediately after perfunctorily commiserating the Godhra and post-Godhra horrors, he was pictured fashionably on a Singapore golf-cart sporting designer sunglasses.

India’s organised communists make a great show of collective decision-making since they most intimately followed the details of Kruschev’s denunciation of Stalin’s personality cult. It has not stopped them routinely genuflecting to China’s communists. There also has been a communist tendency to deny individual merit and creativity at junior levels and instead appropriate all good things for the party bosses. New brilliant faces will never arise in the Left and we may be condemned to see the usual characters in perpetuity. If personality cults around Jyoti Basu or Buddhadeb Bhattacharya have failed to thrive it has not been through lack of trying on part of the publicly paid communist intelligentsia and their docile artists, but rather because of resistance from Bengal’s newspapers and a few clear-headed journalists and well known opposition politicians.

Tamil Nadu has seen grotesque rivalry between Karunanidhi and Jayalalitha as to whose personality cult can alternately outdo the other, supplanting all normal political economy or attempts at discovery of the public interest. In Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, J&K, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh (but not Gujarat or Rajasthan lately), two-party democratic politics has succeeded in limiting tendencies for personality cults to develop. The North Eastern States have had inadequate coverage by modern media, which, fortuitously, along with tribal traditions, may have restrained personality cults from developing.

Facts explode cults

Facts are the most reliable means by which to explode personality cults. It is not a coincidence that facts are also the source by which to develop modern political philosophies, whether conservative, classical liberal/ libertarian, or socialist. Facts have to be discovered, ferreted out, analysed, studied and reflected upon by those civil institutions that are supposed to be doing so, namely university social science, economics and related departments, as well as responsible newspapers, radio and other mass media. Julian Benda once titled a book The Treason of the Intellectuals. India will begin to have a normal political philosophy when the treason of its modern intellectual classes begins to be corrected.

It is not a treason in which the state has been betrayed to an enemy. Rather it is one in which the very purposes of public conversation, such as the discovery of the public interest, have been betrayed in the interests of immediate private gain. This may help to explain why there is so little coherent public discussion in India today, and certainly almost nothing on television, or in the business papers or what passes for academia.

India and Her Neighbours

We & Our Neighbours
Pakistanis And Bangladeshis Would Do Well To Learn From Sheikh Abdullah

by Subroto Roy

First published in The Statesman May 15 2007, Editorial Page Special Article, http://www.thestatesman.net

Pakistan and Bangladesh, unlike ourselves in India, have yet to properly establish elementary constitutional institutions. “Individuals may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation”, said Benjamin Disraeli. The continual political chaos on the streets of Pakistan and Bangladesh ~ not just in recent weeks but in recent years and decades ~ indicate such institutions are still lacking or stillborn there. Tear gas, water cannon and hordes of armed policemen to charge at enraged stone-throwing crowds are not part of any solution but part of the political problem itself.

One main purpose of constitutional institutions has to do with peaceful transfer of power from one political party to its adversary. Mulayam Singh Yadav has just transferred political power to Mayawati in Uttar Pradesh, an Indian State more populous than either Pakistan or Bangladesh. Not long ago Lalu Prasad Yadav did the same to Nitish Kumar in Bihar, and Atal Behari Vajpayee to an appointee of Sonia Gandhi for all India itself. Modern democratic institutions are precisely about such peaceful transfers of power after voters have acted periodically to try to “throw the rascals out”.

Honeymoon period
It would be foolish to suppose an incoming Government of UP, Bihar or all India itself will be very much better than the one it displaces. But certainly in its first few “honeymoon” months or weeks at least, it will not be any worse. The tail-end of any scheduled democratic government, whether in India, Britain, the USA or elsewhere, is quite a disgusting sight, as those in their last days of power grab whatever they can from office before departure without any pretence of shame or embarrassment. Serious decision-making in the public interest would have long ago ceased. Almost anything new would be better.

At the same time, among those coming into power there will be some earnest wish at least to make some small difference for the better ~ a wish that will surely disappear within weeks of entering office after which the old cynicism and corruption will take hold again, and it will be the same ugly business as usual. But certainly, voters can expect slightly fresh air for a brief time after they have thrown one party out of power and chosen to bring in another. That is as about as good as democracy gets in modern practice.

Of India’s dozen or more larger States, we have, in the sixth decade of our Constitution, quite a few in which bipartisan democratic processes have been taking shape. UP was not one of them, and it is to Mayawati’s credit that she has broken the pattern of hung assemblies and now heads a majority government. Bihar too had seemed in the monolithic grip of Lalu Yadav until Nitish Kumar broke it, though the latter’s honeymoon period is now long over and it is business quite as usual there. Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Haryana, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and even J&K each have a noticeable bipartisan nature developing with at least one “national” party present to be counted. Tamil Nadu has been bipartisan but in an unhealthy way based on the personality cults of antagonistic leaders rather than any political principles or class-interests ~ which is a pity as the old Madras once had seemed a source of some new rationality in Indian politics. West Bengal’s voters have been definitely bipartisan, the communist vote being no more than that of the Congress and Trinamul combined. But for decades the local Congress has been notoriously sold down the river to its communist adversary by the Congress “leadership” in Delhi, and that has allowed an entrenched and wholly corrupted communist cultural and political mindset to rule in Kolkata. The Basu-Bhattacharjee Government was palpably bewildered over the Singur and Nandigram events because of their self-induced delusion about the economic and political realities of the State.

Throughout India though, periodic elections have acquired enough legitimacy to be accepted as the means of peaceful change of government. And with bipartisan politics there is a tendency for the median voter to be wooed at election-time.

We have of course many other continuing problems in our political economy ~ most notorious of which is the rotten state of our public finances and the continuous massive deficit finance that has ruined our paper currency and banking system ever since Indira Gandhi’s rule, coinciding with the start of Manmohan Singh’s career as an economic bureaucrat and Pranab Mukherjee’s as a politician in the early 1970s. Our acceptance of the democratic way has to an extent depended on our notoriously irresponsible macroeconomic policies ~ since every State and Union Government entity has been allowed to face no effective binding financial budget-constraint, and all its perverse decision-making can flow eventually into the swamp that is our Public Debt which constitutes the asset-side of the domestic banking system. India’s cardinal problem then becomes one of how to improve our macroeconomics without losing our democracy ~ something the Sonia-Manmohan-Pranab Congress, the BJP/RSS and the Communists are all equally clueless about.

Across our borders, our Pakistani and Bangladeshi cousins were cut from the same constitutional cloth as ourselves, namely the 1935 Government of India Act and the Montague-Chelmsford reforms before that. But after Jinnah’s death they refused to admit this and instead embarked on trying to write and implement a Constitution for a new Caliphate. The initial demand was “That the sovereignty in Pakistan belongs to God Almighty alone and that the Government of Pakistan shall administer the country as His agent”. In Rashid Rida and Maulana Maududi’s words, Islam becomes “the very antithesis of secular Western democracy. The philosophical foundation of Western democracy is the sovereignty of the people. Lawmaking is their prerogative and legislation must correspond to the mood and temper of their opinion… Islam… altogether repudiates the philosophy of popular sovereignty and rears its polity on the foundations of the sovereignty of God and the viceregency (Khilafat) of man.” (Rosenthal, Islam & the Modern National State, Cambridge 1965). Pakistan’s constitutionalists thus have faced an impossible battle to overcome the ontological error of assuming that any mundane government can be in communication with God Almighty.

J&K’s Constitution
Now Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah was as pious a Muslim as any but was far more modern in his 5 November 1951 speech to J&K’s Constituent Assembly: “You are the sovereign authority in this State of Jammu & Kashmir; what you decide has the irrevocable force of law”. Referring to the American and French Constitutions, he said the “basic democratic principle” was of the “sovereignty of the nation”. “We should be clear about the responsibilities that this power invests us with. In front of us lie decisions of the highest national importance which we shall be called upon to take. Upon the correctness of our decisions depends not only the happiness of our land and people now, but the fate as well of generations to come.”

Can a modern conclave of Pervez Musharraf, Nawaz Sharif, Benazir Bhutto and Chaudhry Iftikhar Ahmed decide or declare any better for Pakistan today? Or one of Khaleda, Hasina and whichever cabal of generals and bureaucrats happens to head Bangladesh at present?

If Pakistan and Bangladesh each chose to restart with the modern-minded constitutional example Sheikh Abdullah set more than a half century ago in J&K, they may find their political problems less severe in due course. It is a long road ahead.

Bengal’s Finances

BENGAL’S FINANCES

First published in The Sunday Statesman February 25 2007, Editorial Page  Special Article, www.thestatesman.net

There is urgent need for calm, sober thought, not self-delusion. Foreign trade, world politics are not what State Governments are constitutionally permitted to do.

By SUBROTO ROY

Mr Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee is fond of saying his hoped for industrialization plans will lead to jobs for “thousands” of unemployed young men and women emerging from West Bengal’s many schools, colleges and universities.

Now ever since JM Keynes’s time, economists have understood the phenomenon of unemployment quite well. Some unemployment is voluntary: where someone declines to accept a job at the prevailing wage or chooses leisure instead, e.g. withdraws from the labour-force in order to go to college or care for children or family or be involved in search for a better job. Some unemployment is seasonal, as in agriculture ~ where there often is “overfull” employment at harvest-time. Some unemployment may be frictional or structural, depending on dynamic unpredictable industrial or technological changes. In none of these cases is any large role defined for government investment using public resources, though there can be smaller roles like providing job-information, advice and training.

Keynes himself was concerned with systematic “involuntary” unemployment, where masses of people are willing but unable to find work at the going wage because there has been a general collapse of the market economy, as arguably happened in the 1930s in the Western countries. There has been no such situation in independent India.

And it is important to remember our labour markets are mostly unrestricted by State boundaries: unlike totalitarian China, we do not have internal passports in the country, and Indians are mostly free to work anywhere they wish to. Talk from CPI-M, Congress, BJP or other politicians of alleged Keynesian “multiplier” effects arising from government expenditure is mostly talk. And as for Sonia Gandhi’s “National Rural Employment Guarantee”, to the extent it was argued for at all by Amartya Sen’s disciples like Jean Drèze, the argument was not on Keynesian grounds but of a purportedly more equitable distribution of government expenditure.

What then is the Bhattacharjee Government supposed to be doing?

Chandrababu Naidu started a trend among Chief Ministers flying off to exotic foreign vistas, addressing international conferences and signing memoranda with foreign businessmen. But world politics, international relations and foreign trade are not what Indian State Governments are permitted by our Constitution to be engaged in doing. Nelson Mandela is a great man of history but Jyoti Basu’s Government had no constitutional right or business to gift him five million American dollars of West Bengal public money after he was released from jail in South Africa in 1990 by De Klerk.

Our Constitution is crystal clear that the legitimate agenda of India’s State Governments is something very mundane and wholly unglamorous: State Governments are supposed to be managing Courts of Law; the Police, Civil Order, Prisons; Water, Sanitation, Health; State Debt Service; Intra-State Infrastructure & Communications; Local Government; Liquor & Other Public Sector Industry; Trade, Local Banking & Finance; Land, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry; Libraries, Museums, Monuments; State Civil Service & Administration. In addition, “concurrent” with the Union Government are Criminal, Civil & Family Law, Contracts & Torts; Forests & Environmental Protection; Unemployment & Refugee Relief; Electricity; Education. It is relative to that explicit agenda that State Government performances around the country must be evaluated.

The finances of the West Bengal Government and those of every other State of the Union appear in a condition of Byzantine confusion. Even so, it is not impossible for any citizen to understand them with a little serious effort. The State receives tax revenues, income from State operations (like bus fares, lottery tickets etc), and grants transferred from the Union. Of the State’s total revenues, more than 80% arise from taxation. Of those taxes, about 30% is collected by the Union on behalf of the State in accordance with the Finance Commission’s formulae; 70% is collected by the State itself, and about 60% of whhat the State collects is Sales Tax. On the expenditure side, more than 60% goes in repaying the State’s debts as well as interest owed on that debt. The remainder gets distributed as summarily shown in the table. (What would be revealed at a higher level of detail is that e.g. Rs. 2.63 Bn is spent in collecting Rs. 9.93 Bn of land revenue!) The wide difference between the State’s income from all sources and its expenditures implies the State must then issue new public debt. That typically has been a larger and larger sum every year, greater than the amount of maturing debt being amortised or extinguished. The potentially grave consequence of this will be obvious to any householder, and makes it imperative that calm, sober thought and objective analysis occur about the State’s financial condition and budget constraint. There is no room for self-delusion, especially on the part of the Bhattacharjee Government. We are still paying interest on the money we borrowed to make Nelson Mandela a gift seventeen years ago.

Govt. of W. Bengal’s Finances 2003-2004
Rs Billion (Hundred Crore)
EXPENDITURE ACTIVITIES:
government & local government 8.68 1.68%
judiciary 1.27 0.25%
police (including home guard etc.) 13.47 2.61%
prisons 0.62 0.12%
bureaucracy 5.69 1.10%
collecting land revenue & taxes 4.32 0.84%
government employee pensions 26.11 5.05%
schools, colleges, universities, institutes 45.06 8.72%
health, nutrition & family welfare 14.70 2.84%
water supply & sanitation 3.53 0.68%
roads, bridges, transport, etc. 8.29 1.60%
electricity (mostly loans to power sector) 31.18 6.03%
irrigation, flood control, environment, ecology 10.78 2.09%
agricultural subsidies, rural development, etc. 7.97 1.54%
industrial subsidies 2.56 0.50%
capital city development 7.29 1.41%
social security, SC, ST, OBC, labour welfare 9.87 1.91%
tourism 0.09 0.02%
arts, archaeology, libraries, museums 0.16 0.03%
miscellaneous 0.52 0.10%
debt amortization & debt servicing 314.77 60.89%
total expenditure 516.92

tax revenue 141.10
operational income 6.06
grants from Union 18.93
loans recovered 0.91
total income 167.00
INCOME SOURCES:

GOVT. BORROWING REQUIREMENT
(total expenditure
minus total income ) 349.93

financed by:
new public debt issued 339.48
use of Trust Funds etc 10.45
349.93
From the author’s research and based on latest available data published by the Comptroller & Auditor General of India

On Land-Grabbing

ON LAND-GRABBING

Dr Singh’s India, Buddhadeb’s Bengal, Modi’s Gujarat have notorious US, Soviet and Chinese examples to follow ~ distracting from the country’s real economic problems

By SUBROTO ROY

First published in The Sunday Statesman, Editorial Page Special Article, Jan 14 2007

AT a business meet on 12 January 2005, Dr Manmohan Singh showered fulsome praise on Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee as “dynamic”, “the Nation’s Best Chief Minister”, whose “wit and wisdom”, “qualities of head and heart”, “courage of conviction and passionate commitment to the cause of the working people of India” he admired, saying “with Buddhadeb Babu at the helm of affairs it appears Bengal is once again forging ahead… If today there is a meeting of minds between Delhi and Kolkata, it is because the ideas that I and Buddhadebji represent have captured the minds of the people of India. This is the idea of growth with equity and social justice, the idea that economic liberalization and modernization have to be mindful of the needs of the poor and the marginalized.”

With such support of a Congress Prime Minister (as well as proximity to Pranab Mukherjee), Mr Bhattacharjee could hardly have feared the local Congress and Trinamul would pose any threat in the 2006 Assembly Elections despite having more potential voters between them than the CPI-M.

Dr Singh returned to the “needs of the poor and the marginalized” at another business meet on 8 January 2007 promising to “unveil a new Rehabilitation Policy in three months to increase the pace of industrialisation” which would be “more progressive, humane and conducive to the long-term welfare of all stakeholders”, while his businessman host pointedly stated about Singur “land for industry must be made available to move the Indian manufacturing sector ahead”.

The “meeting of minds between Delhi and Kolkata” seems to be that agriculture allegedly has become a relatively backward slow-growing sector deserving to yield in the purported larger national interest to industry and services: what the PM means by “long-term welfare of all stakeholders” is the same as the new CPI-M party-line that the sons of farmers should not remain farmers (but become automobile technicians or IT workers or restaurant waiters instead).

It is a political viewpoint coinciding with interests of organised capital and industrial labour in India today, as represented by business lobbies like CII, FICCI and Assocham on one hand, and unions like CITU and INTUC on the other. Business Standard succinctly (and ominously) advocated this point of view in its lead editorial of 9 January as follows: “it has to be recognised that the world over capitalism has progressed only with the landed becoming landless and getting absorbed in the industrial/service sector labour force ~ indeed it is obvious that if people don’t get off the land, their incomes will rise only slowly”.

Land is the first and ultimate means of production, and the attack of the powerful on land-holdings or land-rights of the unorganised or powerless has been a worldwide phenomenon ~ across both capitalism and communism.

In the mid-19th Century, white North America decimated hundreds of thousands of natives in the most gargantuan land-grab of history. Defeated, Chief Red Cloud of the Sioux spoke in 1868 for the Apache, Navajo, Comanche, Cheyenne, Iroquois and hundreds of other tribes: “They made us many promises, more than I can remember, but they never kept any except one: they promised to take our land, and they took it.”

Half a century later, while the collapse of grain prices contributed to the Great Depression and pauperisation of thousands of small farmers in capitalist America in the same lands that had been taken from the native tribes, Stalin’s Russia embarked on the most infamous state-sponsored land-grab in modern history: “The mass collectivisation of Soviet agriculture (was) probably the most warlike operation ever conducted by a state against its own citizens…. Hundreds of thousands and finally millions of peasants… were deported… desperate revolts in the villages were bloodily suppressed by the army and police, and the country sank into chaos, starvation and misery… The object of destroying the peasants’ independence…was to create a population of slaves, the benefit of whose labour would accrue to industry. The immediate effect was to reduce Soviet agriculture to a state of decline from which it has not yet recovered… The destruction of the Soviet peasantry, who formed three quarters of the population, was not only an economic but a moral disaster for the entire country. Tens of millions were driven into semi-servitude, and millions more were employed as executants…” (Kolakowski, Main Currents of Marxism).

Why did Stalin destroy the peasants? Lenin’s wishful “alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry” in reality could lead only to the peasants being pauperised into proletarians. At least five million peasants died and (Stalin told Churchill at Yalta) another ten million in the resultant famine of 1932-1933. “Certainly it involved a struggle ~ but chiefly one between urban Communists and villagers… it enabled the regime to obtain much of the capital desired for industrialization from the defeated village… it was the decisive step in the building of Soviet totalitarianism, for it imposed on the majority of the people a subjection which only force could maintain” (Treadgold, 20th Century Russia).

Mr Bhattacharjee’s CPI-M is fond of extolling Chinese communism, and the current New Delhi establishment have made Beijing and Shanghai holiday destinations of choice. Dr Singh’s Government has been eager to create hundreds of “Special Economic Zones” run by organised capital and unionised labour, and economically privileged by the State. In fact, the Singur and Nandigram experiences of police sealing off villages where protests occur are modelled on creation of “Special Economic Zones” in China in recent years.

For example, Chinese police on 6 December 2005 cracked down on farmers and fishermen in the seaside village of Dongzhou, 125 miles North East of Hong Kong. Thousands of Dongzhou villagers clashed with troops and armed police protesting confiscation of their lands and corruption among officials. The police immediately sealed off the village and arrested protesters. China’s Public Security Ministry admitted the number of riots over land had risen sharply, reaching more than seventy thousand across China in 2004; police usually suppressed peasant riots without resort to firing but in Dongzhou, police firing killed 20 protesters. Such is the reality of the “emergence” of China, a totalitarian police-state since the Communist takeover in 1949, from its period of mad tyranny until Mao’s death in 1976, followed by its ideological confusion ever since.

Modern India’s political economy today remains in the tight grip of metropolitan “Big Business” and “Big Labour”. Ordinary anonymous individual citizens ~ whether housewife, consumer, student, peasant, non-union worker or small businessman ~ have no real voice or representation in Indian politics. We have no normal conservative, liberal or social democratic party in this country, as found in West European democracies where the era of land-grabbing has long-ceased. If our polity had been normal, it would have known that economic development does not require business or government to pauperise the peasantry but instead to define and secure individual property rights and the Rule of Law, and establish proper conditions for the market economy. The Congress and BJP in Delhi and CPI-M in Kolkata would not have been able to distract attention from their macroeconomic misdeeds over the decades ~ indicated, for example, by increasing interest-expenditure paid annually on Government debt as a fraction of tax revenues (see Table). This macroeconomic rot originated with the Indira Gandhi-PN Haksar capriciousness and mismanagement, which coincided with the start of Dr Singh’s career as India’s best known economic bureaucrat.

Land, Liberty & Value

LAND, LIBERTY & VALUE

Government must act in good faith treating all citizens equally ~ not favouring organised business lobbies and organised labour over an unorganised peasantry

By SUBROTO ROY
First published in The Sunday Statesman Editorial Page Special Article, December 31 2006

EVERY farmer knows that two adjacent plots of land which look identical to the outsider may be very different in character, as different as two siblings of the same family. Adjacent plots may differ in access to groundwater and sunlight, in minerals and salts, in soil, fertilisers, parasites, weeds or a dozen other agronomic factors. Most of all, they will differ in the quality and ingenuity of thought and labour that has gone into their care and cultivation over the years, perhaps over generations.

John Locke said: “Whatsoever that (a man) removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property… For this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no one but he can have a right to what that once joined to, at least where there is enough and as good left in common for others” (Second Treatise of Government). Plots of land are as specific as the families that have “mixed” their labour with them. Locke wrote of labour being something “unquestionably” the labourer’s own property; in the same libertarian vein, Robert Nozick opened Anarchy, State and Utopia saying “Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights)”.

But as we recognise the universal sanctity of the individual person and his/her private property, we have to start qualifying it. If you purchase a field, forest or estate through which runs a pathway traditionally used by the public to get from one side to the other then even as the new owner you may not have a right to forbid the public’s use of the pathway. By extension, it is clear the State, the community of which you are a citizen, may approach you and demand there should be and will be a public road or thoroughfare through your property in the common interest. Such is the sovereign’s right of “eminent domain” recognised throughout the world, not only in times of war or natural disaster but also in normal times where private property may be taken for public use. The individual’s right to free use of his/her property is circumscribed as a result.

What may be certainly expected though in all matters is that the State will act in good faith, i.e., that it has conducted proper technical surveys and cost-benefit analyses as well as transparent public hearings, and has honestly decided that the road must be constructed using this route and no other. The doctrine of eminent domain implies that while the right to private property may be basic, it is not absolute, as indeed no right is, not even the right to one’s own life. In India, one key difference between the landmark Golaknath (AIR 1967 SC 1643) and Kesavananda Bharati (AIR 1973 SC 1461) rulings had to do precisely with the former recognising the right to property being fundamental as in our original 1950 Constitution, while the latter consented to the Indira Parliament’s denial of this.

When private property is taken, fair compensation must be paid. For example, the American Constitution says “no private property may be taken for public use without just compensation”. What is just compensation? Typically it would be the “fair market value” — but that must be properly adjudged accounting for the best future use of the land, not merely the historical or traditional past use of the land.

Consider, in a mature urban real-estate market, a plot made vacant because a warehouse located on it has accidentally burned down. What is the value of the plot now? Another warehouse could be built, but other bids could come in too for construction of offices or residential flats or a multi-storey garage. The plot’s value would differ depending on which use it is ultimately put to. And this value would be ascertained by calculating the expected cash flows into the future from each of these possibilities, discounted appropriately to account for the fact the future is less valuable than the present, with the highest value alternative being chosen. That is how a mature private real-estate market works in theory, though in practice there would be zoning and environmental restrictions to account for the traditional nature of the neighbourhood as well as possible pollution by effluent waste etc.

In India, Government departments and ministries have inherited prime urban real estate from British times. Amidst the highest value real estate in Kolkata, Bangalore, Delhi etc. will be found a military camp or flats built for military personnel, having nothing whatsoever to do with furtherance of the nation’s defences today. The appalling state of government accounting and audit of our public property and institutions includes the fact that neither the Union nor State Governments and municipalities have the faintest idea of assets, including real estate, that they own. These public assets are frequently open to abuse by managerially uncontrolled government employees.

Fallacies even more curious seem to be currently at work in Indian policy-making, whether by this or that political party. The “eminent domain” doctrine requires a public purpose to exist for acquisition of private property by the State: e.g. construction of a road, bridge, dam, airport or some other traditional public good which is going to be used by the public. In India as elsewhere, “land reform” did involve taking an absentee landlord A’s land and distributing it to B, C, D and E who worked as peasants on it. But nowhere else outside formerly communist China has land been forcibly taken from peasants B, C, D and E and handed over to this or that private capitalist in name of economic development (in a reverse class war)!

Eminent domain doctrine requires good faith on part of the State with respect to its citizens and that implies treating all citizens’ interests equally – not e.g. favouring an organised business lobby or organised industrial labour over the unorganised peasantry uneducated in the wiles of city people.

Also, there is no reason why Government should be interested in a particular product-mix emerging out of a given private factory (such as the so-called inflation-unadjusted “Rs one lakh car” instead of telecom equipment or garments or textiles). Dr Manmohan Singh’s statement last week that he wishes to see “employment-intensive” industries merely added to Government confusion: from Henry Ford to Japanese “lean business” today, everyone knows the direction of change of technology in the automobile industry has been towards robotics, making modern manufacturing less and less manpower-intensive! The Tatas themselves underwent a major downsizing and restructuring in the last decade, hiving off industries not considered part of their “core competence”.

Traditional agriculture of Singur’s sort represents the most labour-intensive employment-generating kind of rural economy. While such rural life may appear unsatisfying to the urban outsider, there is, as Tolstoy, Rabindranath, Gandhi and others knew, subtle happiness, contentment and tranquility there absent in alienated industrial sprawls. “Surplus” labour occurs in agriculture because of technological improvements in quality and delivery of agricultural inputs as well as new education and awareness (Theodore W. Schultz,Transforming Traditional Agriculture). It is mostly seasonal and all hands are used during the harvest when even urban migrants flock back to help. Industry did not leave Bengal in the 1960s and 1970s because of Mamata Banerjee but because of urban unrest, the culture of gheraos and lockouts, and bad regulations of the labour and capital markets associated largely with Ms Banerjee’s Left Front adversaries.

The basic fiction the Union and State Governments have made themselves believe is that their idea of an industrialisation plan is necessary for economic development. It is not. Real economic problems in West Bengal and elsewhere are financial to do with State budgets. “Debt overhang is there” is how the RBI Governor apologetically put it last week. Interest payments on the West Bengal State public debt consume larger and larger fractions of the revenue: these payments were at Rs 13 Bn in 1995 but grew to Rs. 92 Bn by 2004, and may jump to Rs 200 Bn in the next decade. The communists have been in power thirty years and no one but they are responsible. Making the State’s budget healthy would require tackling the gargantuan bureaucracy, slashing ministerial extravagance (foreign trips, VIP security) etc. It is much easier to hobnob with the rich and powerful while tear-gassing the peasants.

Mob Violence and Psychology (2006)

Mob Violence and Psychology

Mob violence remains a monthly occurrence in modern India; it gives the lie to our claims of political maturity and democratic development.

By SUBROTO ROY

First published in The Sunday Statesman Editorial Page Special Article

December 10 2006

Mob violence certainly signals collapse of the Rule of Law and absence of normal political conversation and decision-making. Mob violence in modern India remains a monthly occurrence: a child is killed by a speeding bus, the driver if he is caught is thrashed to death by a mob of onlookers and the bus burnt down; a factory closes and workers go on a rampage; a statue or political personality or religious figure is perceived to have been insulted or desecrated, and crowds take to the streets to burn vehicles and cause mayhem; a procession is said to be insulted, and rival mobs go to battle with one another. (In fact, elected legislators in Parliament and State Assemblies frequently conflate mob behaviour like slogan-shouting with political conversation itself, carrying into the House the political methods they have learned to employ outside it. And contrary to what our legislators may suppose, they do need to be constantly lectured to by the general citizenry whose paid servants they are supposed to be).

Such may be relatively simple cases to describe or diagnose. More complex cases include the deliberate burning alive of Graham Staines and his two young sons by a mob in 1999 as they slept in their vehicle in rural Orissa, or countless deeds of similar savagery during Partition and the innumerable other riots we have seen in the history of our supposedly tolerant and non-violent culture.

We are not unique in our propensity for evil. French women knitted and gossiped watching the guillotine do its bloody work during the Jacobin terror. Long before them, as the Catholic scholar Eamon Duffy reports in Faith of our fathers, Pope Gregory IX in 1233 had initiated the “Inquisition”: two anonymous witnesses could cause any person to be arrested as a heretic, tortured and then burnt alive. In 1484, Pope Innocent VIII endorsed “witches” to be burnt, causing “deaths of countless thousands of harmless or eccentric women over the next 300 years. In all, as many as 25,000 people, most of them women may have been burnt as witches in Germany” alone. American history has seen countless cases of mob violence, from witch-burnings and other religious violence to cold-blooded lynching on trees of individual black men by white mobs, black mobs looting inner cities, street clashes between political groups etc. Soviet Russia and Maoist China saw systematic ideologically driven violence by Party cadres and “Red Guards” against countless individuals ~ forced to confess to imaginary misdeeds, then assaulted or shot. Nazi Germany, Czarist Russia and many other countries saw mobs attacking, dispossessing or killing individual Jews and innumerable others, again in systematic ideologically motivated pogroms. Indeed as Hannah Arendt and others have noted, the similarities between totalitarian regimes as outwardly different as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia or Communist China included the ideologically driven targeting of identifiable small minorities for systematic violence by majorities in power. Even Tony Blair’s supposedly Cool Britannia today, besides having the most notorious soccer hooligans in the world, is also a place where no individual, non-white or white, will pass a drunken mob of adolescent school-children on the streets on a Friday night without trepidation.

Every case of mob violence is different; yet what could be common is a temporary, if deliberate, suspension of the normal human sense of responsibility on part of a mob’s individual members. Reason and responsibility return if at all only after the evil has been accomplished ~ whether it is killing or assaulting someone or destroying something ~ and it can be accompanied by a sense of remorse and regret. Even where mob tyranny has been systematic, long-term, ideologically-driven and state-sponsored, as with the Inquisition or French Revolution or Nazi, Soviet or Chinese terrors, future generations look back at the past misdeeds of their ancestors and say: “That was wrong, very wrong, it should never have happened”. Moral learning does take place at some time or other, even if it is long after the evil has occurred. It is as if, when sobriety and rationality return, an individual participant in a mob realises and recognises himself/herself to have revealed a baser ignoble side which is shameful.

“Sometimes a society acts as if all power lay in the hands of the most babyish and animal members, and sometimes as if all power lay in the hands of strict old men, and sometimes it acts more as a whole ~ mostly when there’s a war on. Sometimes a man is not himself and acts as if a babyish or cunning animal had gained control ~ that’s the id ~ sometimes as if an exacting parent, a sarcastic schoolmaster, or an implacable deity possessed him ~ that’s the super-ego. Sometimes a man is more himself and acts more as a whole, a new whole which is not a combination but a synthesis of the id and the super-ego. Some are constantly at the mercy of the id, some are slaves to the super- ego, and in some first one and then the other gains an unhappy victory in a continual struggle, and in some conflict and control have vanished into cooperation…” Such was the description the Cambridge philosopher John Wisdom gave in Philosophy and Psychoanalysis in the 1940s and 1950s, when he translated into normal idiomatic language some of the difficult technical findings and theories of the mind propounded by Sigmund Freud in the previous half-century.

When the mob forms itself, its members individually choose to suppress their normal rational personalities and sense of adult responsibility, and permit instead their cunning animal or babyish instincts to take over and reign supreme within themselves. It must be a collective decision even if silently taken: for one person to behave in such a manner would look identifiably stupid and criminal but for him/her to do so in a group where everyone has simultaneously decided to abandon reason (whether spontaneously or shouting slogans together) allows the loss of individual responsibility to become hidden in the mass, and the collective to take on features of a hydra-headed monster, capable of the vilest deeds without the slightest self-doubt. The victim of their violence or abuse will often be an individual who stands out in some way ~ perhaps by natural or social attributes or even by heroic deeds: indeed Freud suggested that primitive tribes sometimes engaged in parricide and regicide, cannibalising their individual heroes in the belief that by consuming something of the hero’s remains those attributes might magically reappear in themselves.

In modern India, the presence of mob violence on a monthly basis somewhere or other in the country gives the lie to our claims of maturity of our political and democratic development. Those posing as our political leaders may make as many foreign trips and wooden prepared speeches on TV as they wish to, but their actual cowardice is manifest in having failed to address the real disjunction that exists in this country between political interests and political preferences at the grassroots on the one hand, and the lack of serious parliamentary conversation addressing these within our representative institutions on the other. The reliance by the Executive on often brutal police or paramilitary forces reflects failure of the Legislative and Judicial branches of our Government, as well as a lack of balance between them arising from our political and constitutional immaturity.

American Democracy

AMERICAN DEMOCRACY (2006)

 

Does America need a Prime Minister and a longer-lived Legislature?

by

Subroto Roy

First published in The Sunday Statesman

Editorial Page Special Article

Nov 5, 2006

see too https://independentindian.com/2016/11/24/fixing-washington-on-improving-institutional-design-in-the-united-states/

 

The politics of the United States in the last few decades has become so opaque, it is hard to see what goes on, beyond the banal superficialities. Competitive commercial television, an American institutional invention, is hardly the most suitable keeper of any nation’s historical and political heritage, nor a source of accurate collective political memory, and without political memory it is not possible to understand the present or anticipate the future. Yet most modern Americans are compelled by circumstances to comprehend the national or state-level politics of their enormous variegated land of 300 million people only through the very coarse filter provided by commercial television.

Television obviously demands passivity, dissipating a viewer’s ability to reason about or reflect on any information being offered. A newspaper report “Plane crash kills 120” in a front-page column, causes the information to be absorbed in context along with the rest of the day’s news. If the radio says “An aeroplane crashed today, and all 120 passengers aboard are feared dead”, the same event is felt through the invisible newsreader’s voice, the listener being left to imagine the awfulness of what happened. But for TV to report the same event requires pompous self-conscious studio-anchors, helicopters at the scene, interviews with weeping relatives, and instant analyses of the crash’s causes, all under a banner of “Breaking News”. The average viewer is left not so much sympathising with the victims as feeling enervated and anxious about air-travel and the world in general — besides being left ignorant of the rest of the day’s happenings.

In reaching mass-audiences with advertisements of commercial products, TV quickly obtained the general surrender of radio in American homes, though radio still controls what modern Americans hear in the time they spend in their automobiles (and they spend a larger fraction there than any other people). Newspapers signalled their abject surrender to TV by “dumbing down” their front-pages with large photographs as pathetic reminders of yesterday’s TV events, or headlines that sound racy, sensational, glamorous or with-it. Given the transient nature of all news and expense of printing it on newsprint, actually reading newspapers (as opposed to looking at advertising supplements) has become in the age of TV a minor middle class indulgence, although the editorial pages of a handful of “national” newspapers remains the last refuge of serious political discussion in the USA and elsewhere.

American politics filtered through commercial television has caused all issues and politicians, whether national, state and/or local, to tend to become like products and brands available to be bought and sold at the right price. Yet American television also produced a serious reaction to its own banalities by starting in the early 1980s news-reporting and analysis on “Public Television” and also on “C-Span”. “Public Television” (as opposed to commercial or cable networks) produced what came to be known as the “MacNeill-Lehrer NewsHour”, which set the benchmark for all political news and commentary in the USA and indeed across the globe to this day. C-Span took the unusual step of sending television cameras to silently record all political events, especially the seemingly least significant and most tedious of legislative committee meetings or political speeches, and then broadcasting these endlessly 24 hours a day along with very dry political analysis and comment. Both provided a little (“highbrow”) sobriety to the otherwise drunken political culture created by American commercial television. Along with a small number of newspapers like the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Christian Science Monitor and USA Today, MacNeill-Lehrer and C-Span and the odd Sunday morning news-show on commercial TV, gave America’s politically conscious classes their access to information and analysis about their own country and what was being done in its name in the wider world. At least that was so until the 2003 attack on Iraq — during which acceptance of the US military procedure of “embedded reporters” ruined America’s traditions of a free press. Since 2003, growth of political coverage on the Internet especially via “blogging” has caused more candour to penetrate American politics and to explode the dissimulations of the “mainstream media”.

Besides politics via television, the other main factor affecting the attention-deficit disorder, short time-horizon and lack of perspective and depth afflicting modern American discourse, has been the rigid time-table of a Constitution written for a long gone era. Every even-numbered year is an election year in America, and that election is held in the first week of November. Hence on 7 November 2006 America will go to the polls, as it did in November 2004 and as it will again in November 2008. Each requires the entire lower legislative house to be newly elected.

Now two years may have been a long time in the late 18th Century when the US Constitution was written, and transport and communications between the Capitol and the new States was hazardous or time-consuming. But in modern times two years are over in the blink of an eyelid. Members of the American House of Representatives must then spend their time either talking about public money and how to spend it (as only they are authorized to do), or private money and how to earn it in order to stay elected and be able to talk about how to spend the public money. Inevitably, these two activities get confused with each other. The two year term of the American lower house may well be the shortest anywhere in the world, and may deserve to be doubled at least.

The upper house elects two senior politicians from each of the 50 States (regardless of its size or importance) for a 6 year term each, with one-third of the house returning to face the electorate at each of the biennial national elections. These 100 Senators at any given time have often constituted a fine deliberative body, and, along with the executive governors of the larger States, the pool from which America’s presidents and vice-presidents get to be chosen. Yet the Senate has also often enough palpably failed in its “advice and consent” role vis-à-vis the American President — whether in the matter of America never becoming a member of the League of Nations because of Senate isolationism despite Woodrow Wilson having invented it (something the British and French found so bewildering and frustrating), or the modern Senate caving in to the jingoism unleashed by the father-son Bush Presidencies only to then say “Oops, we’ve made a mistake”.

Another fundamental institutional problem at the root of modern American politics today is the lack of separation between the Head of State and Head of Government. This not merely causes people with the wrong ambitions and abilities to want to become President (because they lust in juvenile fashion to fire cruise missiles or fly onto aircraft carriers), it also causes the business of serious governance to frequently stop getting done because of endless paralysis between the President and Legislature. Churchill perspicaciously observed: “The rigid Constitution of the United States, the gigantic scale and strength of its party machinery, the fixed terms for which public officers and representatives are chosen, invest the President with a greater measure of autocratic power than… by the Head of any great State. The vast size of the country, the diverse types, interests and environments of its enormous population, the safety-valve function of the legislatures of fifty Sovereign States, make the focussing of national public opinion difficult, and confer upon the Federal Government exceptional independence of it except at fixed election times. Few modern Governments need to concern themselves so little with the opinion of the party they have beaten at the polls; none secures to its supreme executive officer, at once the Sovereign and the Party Leader, such direct personal authority.” There is an argument to be made for the American President to become more of a constitutional figurehead representing the thoughtful will of the Union and all the 50 States, while an American Prime Minister comes to be elected by the Legislature as a more subdued, sober and competent Head of Government. It would be a healthy development for America’s domestic and international politics, and hence better for the rest of the world as well.

Pakistan’s Allies

PAKISTAN’S ALLIES

First published in two parts in The Sunday Statesman, June 4 2006, The Statesman June 5 2006, Editorial Page Special Article

by Subroto Roy

From the 1846 Treaty of Amritsar creating the State of Jammu & Kashmir until the collapse of the USSR in 1991, Britain and later the USA became increasingly interested in the subcontinent’s Northwest. The British came to India by sea to trade. Barren, splendid, landlocked Afghanistan held no interest except as a home of fierce tribes; but it was the source of invasions into the Indian plains and prompted a British misadventure to install Shah Shuja in place of Dost Mohammad Khan leading to ignominious defeat. Later, Afghanistan was seen as the underbelly of the Russian and Soviet empires, and hence a location of interest to British and American strategic causes.

In November 1954, US President Dwight Eisenhower authorized 30 U-2 spy aircraft to be produced for deployment against America’s perceived enemies, especially to investigate Soviet nuclear missiles which could reach the USA. Reconnaissance balloons had been unsuccessful, and numerous Western pilots had been shot down taking photographs from ordinary military aircraft. By June 1956, U-2 were making clandestine flights over the USSR and China. But on May 1 1960, one was shot or forced down over Sverdlovsk, 1,000 miles within Soviet territory. The Americans prevaricated that it had taken off from Turkey on a weather-mission, and been lost due to oxygen problems. Nikita Kruschev then produced the pilot, Francis Gary Powers, who was convicted of spying, though was exchanged later for a Soviet spy. Powers had been headed towards Norway, his task to photograph Soviet missiles from 70,000 ft, his point of origin had been an American base 20 miles from Peshawar.

America needed clandestine “forward bases” from which to fly U-2 aircraft, and Pakistan’s ingratiating military and diplomatic establishment was more than willing to offer such cooperation, fervently wishing to be seen as a “frontline state” against the USSR. “We will help you defeat the USSR and we are hopeful you will help us defeat India” became their constant refrain. By 1986, the Americans had been permitted to build air-bases in Balochistan and also use Mauripur air-base near Karachi.

Jammu & Kashmir and especially Gilgit-Baltistan adjoins the Pashtun regions whose capital has been Peshawar. In August-November 1947, a British coup d’etat against J&K State secured Gilgit-Baltistan for the new British Dominion of Pakistan.

The Treaty of Amritsar had nowhere required Gulab Singh’s dynasty to accept British political control in J&K as came to be exercised by British “Residents” in all other Indian “Native States”. Despite this, Delhi throughout the late 19th Century relentlessly pressed Gulab Singh’s successors Ranbir Singh and Partab Singh to accept political control. The Dogras acquiesced eventually. Delhi’s desire for control had less to do with the welfare of J&K’s people than with protection of increasing British interests in the area, like European migration to Srinagar Valley and guarding against Russian or German moves in Afghanistan. “Sargin” or “Sargin Gilit”, later corrupted by the Sikhs and Dogras into “Gilgit”, had an ancient people who spoke an archaic Dardic language “intermediate between the Iranian and the Sanskritic”. “The Dards were located by Ptolemy with surprising accuracy on the West of the Upper Indus, beyond the headwaters of the Swat River (Greek: Soastus) and north of the Gandarae (i.e. Kandahar), who occupied Peshawar and the country north of it. This region was traversed by two Chinese pilgrims, Fa-Hsien, coming from the north about AD 400 and Hsuan Tsiang, ascending from Swat in AD 629, and both left records of their journeys.”

Gilgit had been historically ruled by a Hindu dynasty called Trakane; when they became extinct, Gilgit Valley “was desolated by successive invasions of neighbouring rulers, and in the 20 or 30 years ending with 1842 there had been five dynastic revolutions. The Sikhs entered Gilgit about 1842 and kept a garrison there.” When J&K came under Gulab Singh, “the Gilgit claims were transferred with it, and a boundary commission was sent” by the British. In 1852 the Dogras were driven out with 2,000 dead. In 1860 under Ranbir Singh, the Dogras “returned to Gilgit and took Yasin twice, but did not hold it. They also in 1866 invaded Darel, one of the most secluded Dard states, to the south of the Gilgit basin but withdrew again.”

The British appointed a Political Agent in Gilgit in 1877 but he was withdrawn in 1881. “In 1889, in order to guard against the advance of Russia, the British Government, acting as the suzerain power of Kashmir, established the Gilgit Agency”. The Agency was re-established under control of the British Resident in Jammu & Kashmir. “It comprised the Gilgit Wazarat; the State of Hunza and Nagar; the Punial Jagir; the Governorships of Yasin, Kuh-Ghizr and Ishkoman, and Chilas”. In 1935, the British demanded J&K lease to them for 60 years Gilgit town plus most of the Gilgit Agency and the hill-states Hunza, Nagar, Yasin and Ishkuman. Hari Singh had no choice but to acquiesce. The leased region was then treated as part of British India, administered by a Political Agent at Gilgit responsible to Delhi, first through the Resident in J& K and later a British Agent in Peshawar. J& K State no longer kept troops in Gilgit and a mercenary force, the Gilgit Scouts, was recruited with British officers and paid for by Delhi. In April 1947, Delhi decided to formally retrocede the leased areas to Hari Singh’s J& K State as of 15 August 1947. The transfer was to formally take place on 1 August.

On 31 July, Hari Singh’s Governor arrived to find “all the officers of the British Government had opted for service in Pakistan”. The Gilgit Scouts’ commander, a Major William Brown aged 25, and his adjutant, a Captain Mathieson, planned openly to engineer a coup détat against Hari Singh’s Government. Between August and October, Gilgit was in uneasy calm. At midnight on 31 October 1947, the Governor was surrounded by the Scouts and the next day he was “arrested” and a provisional government declared.

Hari Singh’s nearest forces were at Bunji, 34 miles from Gilgit, a few miles downstream from where the Indus is joined by Gilgit River. The 6th J& K Infantry Battalion there was a mixed Sikh-Muslim unit, typical of the State’s Army, commanded by a Lt Col. Majid Khan. Bunji controlled the road to Srinagar. Further upstream was Skardu, capital of Baltistan, part of Laddakh District where there was a small garrison. Following Brown’s coup in Gilgit, Muslim soldiers of the 6th Infantry massacred their Sikh brothers-at-arms at Bunji. The few Sikhs who survived escaped to the hills and from there found their way to the garrison at Skardu.

On 4 November 1947, Brown raised the new Pakistani flag in the Scouts’ lines, and by the third week of November a Political Agent from Pakistan had established himself at Gilgit. Brown had engineered Gilgit and its adjoining states to first secede from J&K, and, after some talk of being independent, had promptly acceded to Pakistan. His commander in Peshawar, a Col. Bacon, as well as Col. Iskander Mirza, Defence Secretary in the new Pakistan and later to lead the first military coup détat and become President of Pakistan, were pleased enough. In July 1948, Brown was awarded an MBE (Military) and the British Governor of the NWFP got him a civilian job with ICI~ which however sent him to Calcutta, where he came to be attacked and left for dead on the streets by Sikhs avenging the Bunji massacre. Brown survived, returned to England, started a riding school, and died in 1984. In March 1994, Pakistan awarded his widow the Sitara-I-Pakistan in recognition of his coup détat.

The peak of Pakistan’s Anglo-American alliance came with the enormous support in the 1980s to guerrilla forces created and headquartered in Peshawar, to battle the USSR and Afghan communists directly across the Durand Line. It was this guerrilla war which became a proximate cause of the collapse of the USSR as a political entity in 1991. President Ronald Reagan’s CIA chief William J. Casey sent vast sums in 1985-1988 to supply and train these guerrillas. The Washington Post and New Yorker reported the CIA training guerrillas “in the use of mortars, rocket grenades, ground-to-air missiles”. 200 hand-held Stinger missiles were supplied for the first time in 1986 and the New Yorker reported Gulbudin Hikmatyar’s “Hizbe Islami” guerrillas being trained to bring down Soviet aircraft. “Mujahideen had been promised two Stingers for every Soviet aircraft brought down. Operators who failed to aim correctly were given additional training… By 1986, the United States was so deeply involved in the Afghan war that Soviet aircraft were being brought down under the supervision of American experts”. (Raja Anwar, The Tragedy of Afghanistan, 1988, p. 234).

The budding US-China détente brokered by Pakistan came into full bloom here. NBC News on 7 January 1980 said “for the first time in history (a senior State Department official) publicly admitted the possibility of concluding a military alliance between the United States and China”. London’s Daily Telegraph reported on 5 January 1980 “China is flying large supplies of arms and ammunition to the insurgents in Afghanistan. According to diplomatic reports, supplies have arrived in Pakistan from China via the Karakoram Highway…. A major build-up of Chinese involvement is underway ~ in the past few days. Scores of Chinese instructors have arrived at the Shola-e-Javed camps.”

Afghan reports in 1983-1985 said “there were eight training camps near the Afghan border operated by the Chinese in Sinkiang province” and that China had supplied the guerrillas “with a variety of weapons including 40,000 RPG-7 and 20,000 RPG-II anti tank rocket launchers.” Like Pakistan, “China did not publicly admit its involvement in the Afghan conflict: in 1985 the Chinese Mission at the UN distributed a letter denying that China was extending any kind of help to the Afghan rebels” (Anwar, ibid. p. 234). Support extended deep and wide across the Arab world. “The Saudi and Gulf rulers … became the financial patrons of the Afghan rebels from the very start of the conflict”. Anwar Sadat, having won the Nobel Peace Prize, was “keen to claim credit for his role in Afghanistan…. by joining the Afghanistan jihad, Sadat could re-establish his Islamic credentials, or so he believed. He could thus not only please the Muslim nations but also place the USA and Israel in his debt.” Sadat’s Defence Minister said in January 1980: “Army camps have been opened for the training of Afghan rebels; they are being supplied with weapons from Egypt” and Sadat told NBC News on 22 September 1981 “that for the last twenty-one months, the USA had been buying arms from Egypt for the Afghan rebels. He said he had been approached by the USA in December 1979 and he had decided to `open my stores’. He further disclosed that these arms were being flown to Pakistan from Egypt by American aircraft. Egypt had vast supplies of SAM-7 and RPG-7 anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons which Sadat agreed to supply to Afghanistan in exchange for new American arms. The Soviet weapons, being light, were ideally suited to guerrilla warfare. … the Mujahideen could easily claim to have captured them from Soviet and Afghan troops in battle.… Khomeini’s Iran got embroiled in war (against Iraq) otherwise Kabul would also have had to contend with the full might of the Islamic revolutionaries.” (Anwar ibid. p. 235).

Afghanistan had been occupied on 26-27 December 1979 by Soviet forces sent by the decrepit Leonid Brezhnev and Yuri Andropov to carry out a putsch replacing one communist, Hafizullah Amin, with a rival communist and Soviet protégé, Babrak Karmal. By 1985 Brezhnev and Andropov were dead and Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev had begun his attempts to reform the Soviet system, usher in openness, end the Cold War and in particular withdraw from Afghanistan, which by 1986 he had termed “a bleeding wound”. Gorbachev replaced Karmal with a new protégé Najibullah Khan, who was assigned the impossible task of bringing about national reconciliation with the Pakistan-based guerrillas and form a national government. Soviet forces withdrew from Afghanistan in February 1989 having lost 14,500 dead, while more than a million Afghans had been killed since the invasion a decade earlier.

Not long after Russia’s Bolshevik Revolution, Gregory Zinoviev had said that international communism “turns today to the peoples of the East and says to them, `Brothers, we summon you to a Holy War first of all against British imperialism!’ At this there were cries of Jehad! Jehad! And much brandishing of picturesque Oriental weapons.” (Treadgold, Twentieth Century Russia, 1990, p. 213). Now instead, the Afghan misadventure had contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Empire itself, the USSR ceasing to be a political entity by 1991, and even Gorbachev being displaced by Boris Yeltsin and later Vladimir Putin in a new Russia.

What resulted for the people of the USA and Britain and the West in general was that they no longer had to live under threat of hostile Soviet tanks and missiles, while the people of Russia, Ukraine and the other erstwhile Soviet republics as well as Eastern Europe were able to throw off the yoke of communism that had oppressed them since the Bolshevik Revolution and instead to breathe the air of freedom.

What happened to the people of Afghanistan, however, was that they were plunged into further ghastly civil war for more than ten years. And what happened to the people of Pakistan was that their country was left resembling a gigantic Islamist military camp, awash with airfields, arms, ammunition and trained guerrillas, as well as a military establishment enlivened as always by perpetual hope that these supplies, provisions and personnel of war might find alternative use in attacks against India over J& K. “We helped you when you wished to see the Soviet Union defeated and withdrawing in Afghanistan”, Pakistan’s generals and diplomats pleaded with the Americans and British, “now you must help us in our wish to see India defeated and withdrawing in Kashmir”. Pakistan’s leaders even believed that just as the Soviet Union had disintegrated afterwards, the Indian Union perhaps might be made to do the same. Not only were the two cases as different as chalk from cheese, Palmerstone’s dictum there are no permanent allies in the politics of nations could not have found more apt use than in what actually came to take place next.

 

 

Pakistan’s generals and diplomats felt betrayed by the loss of Anglo-American paternalism towards them after 1989.

Modern Pakistanis had never felt they subscribed to the Indian nationalist movement culminating in independence in August 1947. The Pakistani state now finally declared its independence in the world by exploding bombs in a nuclear arsenal secretly created with help purchased from China and North Korea. Pakistan’s leaders thus came to feel in some control of Pakistan’s destiny as a nation-state for the first time, more than fifty years after Pakistan’s formal creation in 1947. If nothing else, at least they had the Bomb.

Secondly, America and its allies would not be safe for long since the civil war they had left behind in Afghanistan while trying to defeat the USSR now became a brew from which arose a new threat of violent Islamism. Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, whom Pakistan’s military and the USA had promoted, now encouraged unprecedented attacks on the American mainland on September 11 2001 ~ causing physical and psychological damage which no Soviet, Chinese or Cuban missiles ever had been allowed to do. In response, America attacked and removed the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, once again receiving the cooperative use of Pakistani manpower and real estate ~ except now there was no longer any truck with the Pakistani establishment’s wish for a quid pro quo of Anglo-American support against India on J&K. Pakistan’s generals and diplomats soon realised their Anglo-American alliance of more than a half-century ended on September 11 2001. Their new cooperation was in killing or arresting and handing over fellow-Muslims and necessarily lacked their earlier feelings of subservience and ingratiation towards the Americans and British, and came to be done instead under at least some duress. No benefit could be reaped any more in the fight against India over Jammu & Kashmir. An era had ended in the subcontinent.

The Politics of Dr Singh (2006)

Preface April 25 2009:  This article of mine has become a victim of bowdlerization on the Internet by someone who seems to support Dr Singh’s political adversaries.  I should say, therefore, as I have said before that  there is nothing personal in my critical assessment of Dr Singh’s economics and politics.  To the contrary, he has been in decades past a friend or at least a colleague of my father’s, and in the autumn of 1973 visited our then-home in Paris at the request of my father to advise me, then aged 18, before I embarked on my undergraduate studies at the London School of Economics.   My assessments in recent years like “The Politics of Dr Singh” or “Assessing Manmohan” etc need to be seen along with my “Assessing Vajpayee: Hindutva True and False”, “The Hypocrisy of the CPI-M”, “Against Quackery”, “Our Dismal Politics”, “Political Paralysis” etc.   (Also “Mistaken Macroeconomics”, June 2009). Nothing personal is intended in any of these; the purpose at hand has been to contribute to a full and vigorous discussion of the public interest in India.

Postscript 2 Sep 2013: See especially Did Jagdish Bhagwati “originate”, “pioneer”, “intellectually father” India’s 1991 economic reform?  Did Manmohan Singh? Or did I, through my encounter with Rajiv Gandhi, just as Siddhartha Shankar Ray told Manmohan & his aides in Sep 1993 in Washington?  Judge the evidence for yourself.  And why has Amartya Sen misdescribed his work? India’s right path forward today remains what I said in my 3 Dec 2012 Delhi lecture!

also from 2014: https://independentindian.com/2014/08/07/haksar-manmohan-and-sonia/

 

 

 

THE POLITICS OF DR SINGH

 

by

Subroto Roy

First published in The Sunday Statesman Editorial Page Special Article, May 21 2006

Manmohan Singh matriculated during Partition, and earned bachelor’s and master’s degrees in economics from Punjab University in 1952 and 1954. He then went to Cambridge to read for the BA over two years. The pro-communist Joan Robinson and Nicholas Kaldor were dominant influences in Cambridge economics at the time. Mark Tully reports Dr Singh saying in 2005 he fell under their influence. “At university I first became conscious of the creative role of politics in shaping human affairs, and I owe that mostly to my teachers Joan Robinson and Nicholas Kaldor. Joan Robinson was a brilliant teacher, but she also sought to awaken the inner conscience of her students in a manner that very few others were able to achieve. She questioned me a great deal and made me think the unthinkable. She propounded the left wing interpretation of Keynes, maintaining that the state has to play more of a role if you really want to combine development with social equity. Kaldor influenced me even more; I found him pragmatic, scintillating, stimulating. Joan Robinson was a great admirer of what was going on in China, but Kaldor used the Keynesian analysis to demonstrate that capitalism could be made to work.”

Now, in fact, what was going on in China at that time was the notorious catastrophe caused by Mao Zedong known initially as the “Little Leap Forward” (with a Stalin-like collectivization of agriculture) and then as the “Great Leap Forward”. Mao later apologised to China’s people for his ignorance of microeconomic principles, admitting he “had not realised coal and steel do not move of their own accord but have to be transported”. If what Robinson was extolling to young Indians at Cambridge like Amartya Sen and Manmohan Singh in the mid 1950s was Mao’s China, it was manifest error.

As for Kaldor, the Canadian economist Harry Johnson independently reported that “being a man who rolls with the times fairly fast”, Kaldor “decided early on that capitalism actually was working. So for him the problem was, given that it works, it cannot possibly work because the theory of it is right. It must work for some quite unsuspected reason which only people as intelligent as himself can see.” Like Robinson, Kaldor made a handful of fine contributions to economic theory. But in policy-making he exemplified the worst leftist intellectual vanity and “technocratic” arrogance.

Returning to India, Manmohan Singh was required to spend three years at Chandigarh. In 1960, he left for Nuffield College to work for an Oxford DPhil on the subject of Indian exports. He returned to Chandigarh as required by government rules for another three years, and in 1966 left again until 1969, this time as a bureaucrat at the new UNCTAD in New York run by Raul Prebisch. A book deriving from his doctoral thesis was published by Clarendon Press in 1964.

In 1969, Dr Singh returned to India becoming Professor of International Trade at the Delhi School of Economics. A technical survey of mainstream Indian economic thinking done by his colleagues Jagdish Bhagwati and Sukhamoy Chakravarty published in the American Economic Review of 1969, made footnote references to his book in context of planning and protectionism, but not in the main discussion of Indian exports which at the time had to do with exchange-rate overvaluation.

After Indira Gandhi’s March 1971 election victory, Dr Singh came to the attention of Parameshwar Narain Haksar, who launched his career in bureaucracy after inviting him to write a political paper “What to do with the victory”. Haksar had been an Allahabad lawyer married into the Sapru family. In London as a student he was a protégé of R. Palme Dutt and Krishna Menon, and openly pro-USSR. He was close to the Nehrus, and Jawaharlal placed him in the new Foreign Service. He was four years older than Indira and later knew her husband Feroze Gandhi who died in 1960. By May 1967 Haksar was Indira’s adviser, and became “probably the most influential and powerful person in the Government” until 1974, when there was a conflict with her younger son. But Haksar’s influence continued well into the 1990s. His deeds include nationalization of India’s banks, the Congress split and creation of the Congress(I), and politicisation of the bureaucracy including the intelligence services. High quality independent civil servants became politically committed pro-USSR bureaucrats instead. Professionalism ended and the “courtier culture” and “durbar” politics began.

Haksar and T. N. Kaul were key figures negotiating the August 1971 “Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation” with the USSR, which was to run 25 years except the USSR collapsed before then. Indira had hosted Richard Nixon two years previously, and the Nixon-Kissinger attempt to get close to Zhou En Lai’s China using Pakistan’s Z. A. Bhutto and Yahya Khan (coinciding with Pakistan’s civil war) were undoubtedly factors contributing to India’s Soviet alliance.

As Haksar’s protégé, Dr Singh’s rise in the economic bureaucracy was meteoric. By 1972 he was Chief Economic Adviser and by 1976 Secretary in the Finance Ministry. The newly published history of the Reserve Bank shows him conveying the Ministry’s dictates to the RBI. In 1980-1982 he was at the Planning Commission, and in 1982-1985 he was Reserve Bank Governor (when Pranab Mukherjee was Finance Minister), followed by becoming Planning Commission head, until taking his final post before retirement heading the “South-South Commission” invented by Julius Nyerere of Tanzania, from August 1987 until November 1990 in Geneva.

Dr Singh joined Chandrashekhar’s Government on 10 December 1990, when Rajiv Gandhi was Leader of the Opposition yet supporting Chandrashekhar “from the outside”, and left when new elections were announced in March 1991. The first time his name arose in context of contemporary post-Indira Congress Party politics was on 22 March 1991 when M K Rasgotra challenged the present author to answer how Manmohan Singh would respond to proposals being drafted for a planned economic liberalisation of India by the Congress Party authorised by Rajiv since September 1990 (viz., “Memos to Rajiv” The Statesman 31 July-2 August 1991 republished here as “Three Memoranda to Rajiv Gandhi”; “The Dream Team: A Critique” The Statesman 6-8 January 2006 also republished here; see also “Rajiv Gandhi and the Origins of India’s 1991 Economic Reform” published elsewhere here, and in abbreviated form in Freedom First, October 2001).

Rajiv was assassinated on 21 May 1991, resulting in Narasimha Rao (who had been ill and due to retire) becoming PM in June 1991. Dr Singh told Tully: “On the day (Rao) was formulating his cabinet, he sent his Principal Secretary to me saying, `The PM would like you to become the Minister of Finance’. I didn’t take it seriously. He eventually tracked me down the next morning, rather angry, and demanded that I get dressed up and come to Rashtrapati Bhavan for the swearing in. So that’s how I started in politics”. In the same conversation, however, Dr Singh also said he learnt of “the creative role of politics” from Robinson, and hence he must have realised he actually became politically committed when he began to be mentored by Haksar — Indira Gandhi’s most powerful pro-communist bureaucrat. Before 1991, Dr Singh may be fairly described as a statist anti-liberal who travelled comfortably along with the tides of the pro-USSR New Delhi political and academic establishment, following every rule in the bureaucratic book and being obedient in face of arbitrary exercise of political and economic power. There is no evidence whatsoever of him having been a liberal economist before 1991, nor indeed of having originated any liberal economic idea afterwards. The Congress Party itself in May 2002 passed a resolution saying the ideas of India’s liberalisation had originated with neither him nor Narasimha Rao.

Indeed, the 1970s and 1980s saw onset of the worst macroeconomic policies with ruination and politicisation of India’s banking system, origins of the Rs 30 trillion (Rs 30 lakh crore) public debt we have today, and the start of exponential money supply growth and inflation. Along with Pranab Mukherjee, Dr Singh, as the exemplary Haksarian bureaucrat, must accept responsibility for having presided over much of that. If they are to do anything positive for India now, it has to be first of all to undo such grave macroeconomic damage. This would inevitably mean unravelling the post-Indira New Delhi structure of power and privilege by halting deficit finance and corruption, and enforcing clean accounting and audit methods in all government organisations and institutions. Even the BJP’s Vajpayee and Advani lacked courage and understanding to begin to know how to do this, allowing themselves to be nicely co-opted by the system instead. Rajiv might have done things in a second term; but his widow and her coalition government led by Dr Singh, who exemplified India’s political economy of the 1970s and 1980s, appear clueless as to the macroeconomic facts, and more likely to enhance rather than reverse unhealthy fiscal and monetary trends.

Revisionist Flattery of Indira Gandhi

Inder Malhotra’s Indira Gandhi : A Review Article
by Subroto Roy
First published in The Statesman May 7 2006

Indira Priyadarshini Nehru was fortunate to have been a handsome woman born to an eminent and indulgent father and grandfather. Despite her lack of higher education or significant worldly wisdom or experience, she acquired enough of an aura of being born to rule that she became Congress Party President in 1959 at age 41, and India’s most dramatic Prime Minister from 1966-1977 and again from 1980-1984 when she was assassinated. She was lucky too that the Zoroastrian man she married did not have one of the many long and colourful surnames Indian Zoroastrians can have, but coincidentally shared the same surname as modern India’s founder. Hence arose the iconic name and personage known as Indira Gandhi.

“The evil that men do lives after them, the good is often interred with their bones”, said Shakespeare. Indira Gandhi’s one and paramount good deed as India’s leader and indeed as a world leader of her time was to have fought a war that was so rare in international law for having been unambiguously just. And she fought it flawlessly. The cause had been thrust upon her by an evil enemy’s behaviour against his own people, an enemy supported by the world’s strongest military power with pretensions to global leadership. Victims of the enemy’s wickedness were scores of millions of utterly defenceless, penniless human beings. Indira Gandhi did everything right. She practised patient but firm diplomacy on the world’s stage to avert war if it was at all possible to do. She chose her military generals well and took their professional judgement seriously as to when to go to war and how to win it. Finally, in victory she was magnanimous to the enemy that had been defeated. Children’s history-books in India should remember her as the stateswoman who freed a fraternal nation from tyranny, at great expense to our own people. As a war-leader, Indira Gandhi displayed extraordinary bravery, courage and good sense.

Unfortunately, this was the only arena in which these virtues of hers came to be expressed. India’s serious history-books, beyond those written for or read by children, need to record that her sheer ignorance of the fundamentals of domestic statecraft as well as her caprice, arrogance and hubris caused permanent harm to India’s polity in innumerable dimensions from which we have yet long to recover. On advice first of her childhood acquaintance, the proto-communist P. N. Haksar, and later of her ruffian unprincipled younger son Sanjay, she single-handedly destroyed India’s nascent parliamentary traditions, federalism, the Rule of Law, and its most important political party; the integrity of the civil services, judiciary, police, intelligence services and other public institutions; as well as monetary and fiscal prudence Beside this, she and her younger son Sanjay contributed to destroying communal harmony and political stability in the Punjab, while she and later her older son Rajiv contributed to do the same in Kashmir. She exulted in the personality cult, courtier culture and durbar politics of her father and grandfather.

Many pertinent questions about the personal and political life of Indira Gandhi have remained to be answered by any serious modern biographer. Her relationships with her husband and his rival for her time and affections, her father, remain in darkness, as does, after their deaths, her relationship between 1967- 1974 with Haksar, her key adviser. Her capacity and her failures as a mother to two very different sons also remain unclear. Her own lack of education was transmitted to them and neither succeeded at what he studied to be, though at least Rajiv became a gentleman. Her father had been an indifferent husband to Kamala and she an indifferent wife to Feroze — the most important thing her sons may have done with their lives was to have married women she did not choose for them, and then to have become well-loved spouses themselves. As mother-in-law, her petulant bullying of the young Sikh widow of Sanjay, mother of an infant child at the time, remains to be contrasted with her apparent warmth and generosity towards her Italian-born elder daughter-in-law. All such questions would be ones of feminine gossip or TV-soap operas in case of any ordinary woman but assume political significance for Indians because of the inordinate impact she, her father, her sons and their widows have had on India’s modern history. Why all of India’s national-level politics have acquired a gossipy joint-family tone about them is because she projected onto them no high and universally known political principles whatsoever, but merely her own personal experiences and desire for popularity.

The book at hand provides almost no new fact or insight on any relevant extant personal or political question about Indira Gandhi at all. The one exception has to do with a brief discussion of her relationship with Lal Bahadur Shastri which reveals her naked ambition most clearly, though the author is too ingratiating to wish to draw such a conclusion himself. He meekly deflects blame for her faults onto exogenous random shocks like monsoon failures, the rise in petroleum prices or other uncontrollable international events, or the ill-will of others. The most fawning apologists and cultists are quoted with approval: Sanjay was merely “inept”, the Emergency was brought on by its victims and not such a bad thing really, the Shah Commission resembled “a Chinese people’s court”, Maneka was a “rebellious chit of a girl”, etc. Two decades later, we must expect the greatest detachment and calm objectivity in any serious treatment of this complex stateswoman’s life. What we have instead received — at a time when Rajiv’s widow is in power in Delhi and Haksar’s protégé is her PM, while The Mitrokhin Archives II are published — is a clear attempt at revisionist flattery, complete with Indira’s face smiling at us at the start of every chapter and old propaganda photos from the PIB. This is deeply unfortunate coming from the National Book Trust. Indeed, neither she nor her father deserve further inquiry and reflection today more than do their respective spouses, Feroze Gandhi and Kamala Nehru, both of whom died prematurely.

Logic of Democracy (2006)

LOGIC OF DEMOCRACY

 

by

 

SUBROTO ROY

 

 

First published in The Statesman,

Editorial Page Special Article, March 30 2006

 

 

Parliament may unanimously vote for a bill on the “Office of Profit” issue but this will have to be consistent with the spirit and letter of the Constitution and with natural law if it is not to be struck down by the Supreme Court. It is thus important to get the logic right.

India is a representative and not a direct democracy. We the people constitute the Electorate who send our representatives periodically to legislative institutions at national, state and local levels. These representatives, namely, Lok Sabha and Legislative Assembly Members and municipal councilors, have a paid job to do on behalf of all their constituents, not merely those who voted for them. They are supposed to represent everyone including those who voted against them or did not vote at all.

In view of this, if the question is asked: “Was India’s interest served by Sonia Gandhi peremptorily resigning as the Lok Sabha Member from Rae Bareli and then immediately declaring she will fight a fresh election from there?”, the answer must be of course that it was not. Mrs Gandhi had been elected after an expensive process of voting and she had a duty to continue to represent all of Rae Bareli’s people (not just her party-supporters) for the duration of the 14th Lok Sabha. Instead she has given the impression that Rae Bareili is her personal fiefdom from where she must prove again how popular she is as its Maharani.

What needed to be done instead was to abolish the so-called “National Advisory Council” which, like the “Planning Commission” is yet another expensive extra-constitutional body populated by delusional self-styled New Delhi worthies. The NAC has been functioning as Mrs Gandhi’s personal Planning Commission, and she lacked the courage to scrap it altogether — just as Manmohan Singh lacks the courage to tell Montek Ahluwalia to close down the Planning Commission (and make it a minor R&D wing of the Ministry of Finance).

 

Lok Sabha’s duties

 

What are Lok Sabha Members and State MLAs legitimately required to be doing in caring for their constituents? First of all, as a body as a whole, they need to elect the Government, i.e. the Executive Branch, and to hold it accountable in Parliament or Assembly. For example, the Comptroller and Auditor General submits his reports directly to the House, and it is the duty of individual legislators to put these to good use in controlling the Government’s waste, fraud or abuse of public resources.

Secondly, MPs and MLAs are obviously supposed to literally represent their individual constituencies in the House, i.e. to bring the Government and the House’s attention to specific problems or contingencies affecting their constituents as a whole, and call for the help, funds and sympathy of the whole community on their behalf.

Thirdly, MPs and MLAs are supposed to respond to pleas and petitions of individual constituents, who may need the influence associated with the dignity of their office to get things rightly done. For example, an impoverished orphan lad once needed surgery to remove a brain tumour; a family helping him was promised the free services of a top brain surgeon if a hospital bed and operating theatre could be arranged. It was only by turning to the local MLA that the family were able to get such arrangements made, and the lad had his tumour taken out at a public hospital. MPs and MLAs are supposed to vote for and create public goods and services, and to use their moral suasion to see that existing public services actually do get to reach the public.

 

Rajya Sabha different species

Rajya Sabha Members are a different species altogether. Most if not all State Legislative Councils have been abolished, and sadly the present nature of the Rajya Sabha causes similar doubts to arise about its utility. The very idea of a Rajya Sabha was first mooted in embryo form in an 1888 book A History of the Native States of India, Vol I. Gwalior, whose author also advocated popular constitutions for the “Indian India” of the “Native States” since “where there are no popular constitutions, the personal character of the ruler becomes a most important factor in the government… evils are inherent in every government where autocracy is not tempered by a free constitution”.

 

When Victoria was declared India’s “Empress” in 1877, a “Council of the Empire” was mooted but had remained a non-starter even until the 1887 Jubilee. An “Imperial Council” was now designed of the so-called “Native Princes”, which came to evolve into the “Chamber of Princes” which became the “Council of the States” and the Rajya Sabha.

 

It was patterned mostly on the British and not the American upper house except in being not liable to dissolution, and compelling periodic retirement of a third of members. The American upper house is an equal if not the senior partner of the lower house. Our Rajya Sabha follows the British upper house in being a chamber which is duty-bound to oversee any exuberance in the Lok Sabha but which must ultimately yield to it if there is any dispute.

 

Parliament in India’s democracy effectively means the Lok Sabha — where every member has contested and won a direct vote in his/her constituency. The British upper house used to have an aristocratic hereditary component which Tony Blair’s New Labour Government has now removed, so it has now been becoming more like what the Rajya Sabha was supposed to have been like.

 

The corruption of our body-politic originated with the politicisation of the bureaucracy thirty five years ago by Indira Gandhi and PN Haksar. The Rajya Sabha came to be ruined with the “courtier culture” and “durbar politics” that resulted. This bad model which the Congress Party created and followed was imitated by the Congress’s political opponents too. Our Rajya Sabha has now tended to become a place for party worthies who have lost normal elections, superannuated cinematic personalities, perpetual bureaucrats still seeking office, and similar others. The healthiest course of action for Indian democracy may be to close it down completely for a few years, then recreate it ab initio based on its original purposes and intent (but this may not be constitutionally possible to do).

 

 

Holding Executive accountable

It is a forgotten platitude that in a representative democracy what elected legislators are supposed to be doing is represent the interests of the Electorate. Along with the Judiciary, the Legislative Branch is supposed to control the Executive Government, which is the natural oppressor of the Electorate. That is why the Legislature must be independent of the Executive — which is the precise intent behind Article 102 (a) of the Constitution of India: “A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament… if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State…”

 

In other words, if you are a Lok Sabha MP or State MLA who is supposed to be a part of the august House which has elected the Executive Government and by whom that Government is supposed to be held accountable, then it is a clear conflict of interest if you are yourself in the pay of that Government. As a legislator, you are either in the Executive or you are not. If you are in the Executive, you are liable to be held accountable by the House. If you are not in the Executive, you are duty-bound as an ordinary Member of the House to hold the Executive accountable. The logic is ultimately as clear and simple as that.

 

It is inevitable that the delineation of the appropriate boundaries between Legislature and Executive will have to be pronounced upon by the Judiciary. The “Office of Profit” issue has opened an opportunity for a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court to speak on the rights and duties of the Legislative and Executive Branches of Government. And no Constitution Bench has ever spoken unwisely.

Separation of Powers: India, the USA, Pakistan

SEPARATION OF POWERS (2006)

Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws outlined a doctrine that applies to India, the USA and all constitutional democracies: there is no monopoly of political wisdom.

By SUBROTO ROY
First published in The Sunday Statesman, The Statesman Editorial Page,

Special Article Feb 12-13 2006

The Speaker’s noble office is that of the single member of the House, traditionally chosen by unanimity, whose task it is to self-effacingly maintain order in Parliamentary debate and proceedings, so that the House’s work gets done. C’est tout. Once chosen Speaker, he ipso facto retires from partisan politics for life. The Speaker neither contributes to the substance of Parliamentary debate (except in the rare case of a tie) nor has to feel personally responsible for Parliament’s conduct.

Our Parliament has tended to become so dysfunctional since Indira Gandhi and her sycophants destroyed its traditions 30 years ago, that supervising its normal work is an onerous enough task for even the finest of Speakers to handle.

The Lok Sabha’s incumbent Speaker has tended to see himself as the champion of Parliament.  He need not.  He does not command a majority in the Lok Sabha; the Government Party does. We have had the oddest peculiarity unfolding in India at present where the person who does command the Lok Sabha’s majority, and therefore who would be normally defined as Prime Minister of India, has chosen to nominate someone who is not a member of the Lok Sabha to act as Prime Minister, i.e. to command the Lok Sabha’s majority. (The Rajya Sabha was and remains irrelevant to most things important to Indian democracy, regardless of its narcissism and vanity). Someone with access to 10 Janpath should have told Sonia Gandhi in May 2004 that if she did not wish to be PM and wanted to gift the job to someone else, she should do so to someone who, like herself, had been elected to the Lok Sabha, like Pranab Mukherjee (elected for the first time) or Kamal Nath or Priya Ranjan (both veterans).

Manmohan Singh, a former Lok Sabha candidate, may as Finance Minister have been able to progress much further with economic reforms. But sycophancy has ruled the roost in the Congress’s higher echelons, and nobody had the guts to tell her that. Indeed as early as December 2001, Congress leaders knew that in the unlikely event they won the polls, Manmohan Singh would likely be PM by Sonia Gandhi’s choice (though he was not expected to last long at the top), and yet he did not contest the Lok Sabha polls in 2004.

The Government of the day, not the Speaker, is Parliament’s champion in any discussion with the Supreme Court over constitutional rights and Separation of Powers. And the Government has in fact quietly and sensibly requested the Supreme Court to set up a Constitutional Bench for this purpose. Such a Constitutional Bench shall have cause to ask itself how far Kesavananda Bharati needs to be tweaked if at all to accommodate the contention that Parliament has a right to judge its own members. The Court may well likely say that of course Parliament has a right to judge its own members but even that right is not an absolute right, (nothing is). Even Parliament’s right to judge its own members must be in accordance with natural law, with principles of justice, with due and clearly defined processes. E.g. the established Privileges Committee and not the ad hoc Bansal Committee had to do the needful.

Imagine a hypothetical case of fantastic fiction where half a dozen independent MPs are elected to a future Lok Sabha, and then take it upon themselves to expose corruption and shenanigans of all major political parties. Our fantastic super-heroes become whistleblowers within Parliament itself while remaining totally incorruptible as individuals — like Eliot Ness’s team who jailed Al Capone and other gangsters, and came to be depicted in Hollywood’s The Untouchables. These Untouchables would come to be feared and despised by everyone from Communists on one side of the political spectrum to Fascists on the other. They would upset everybody precisely because they were so clean and were not purchasable. The Government and Opposition of the day might wellgang up to expel such troublemakers and even fabricate charges to do so. (Now there’s a script for a Bollywood movie!)

What our Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench decides now in the matter at hand will determine the fate of our super-heroes in such a future fantasia. The present case is a polar opposite — where MPs have been caught on camera with their sordid fingers in the cookie-jar, and then made to walk the plank immediately by their peers. Yet natural law applies here as it will to our fantastic future fighters, and this is what the Bench would have to speak on.

Why the present situation continues to be disconcerting is because the whole country heard all the holier-than-thou protestations, yet everyone continues to take a very dim view of what they see of politicians’ behaviour. There remain strong suspicions that only a few very tiny tips of very large icebergs were or can be caught on camera. Large-scale deals and contracts involve payments into invisible bank accounts, not petty cash into pockets or even suitcases filled with cash sloshing around Delhi.

What we have desperately needed in the situation is modern prime ministerial leadership which could intelligently and boldly guide national debate in the right direction on the whole matter of probity in public life. Why a distinguished parliamentarian like the Speaker has found himself in the limelight is because neither the de jure nor de facto Prime Ministers of India are anywhere to be seen thinking on their feet on these central issues of constitutional procedure and practice. They tend to use prepared scripts and may be temperamentally disinclined to do what has been called for by these unscripted circumstances. (Indeed the much-maligned H. D. Deve Gowda could be alone among the bevy of recent PMs who has been able to think on his feet at all.)

Collapse Before Executive Power

In the meantime, the United States is going through its own Separation of Powers’ crisis. As explained in these columns previously, the American system is distinctly different from the British, and our own system is midway between them. Yet similar principles may be discerned to apply or fail to be applied in all.

Winston Churchill once perspicaciously observed:

“The rigid Constitution of the United States, the gigantic scale and strength of its party machinery, the fixed terms for which public officers and representatives are chosen, invest the President with a greater measure of autocratic power than was possessed before (the First World War) by the Head of any great State. The vast size of the country, the diverse types, interests and environments of its enormous population, the safety-valve function of the legislatures of fifty Sovereign States, make the focussing of national public opinion difficult, and confer upon the Federal Government exceptional independence of it except at fixed election times. Few modern Governments need to concern themselves so little with the opinion of the party they have beaten at the polls; none secures to its supreme executive officer, at once the Sovereign and the Party Leader, such direct personal authority.”

America’s Legislative Branch has, on paper, strong powers of advice and consent to control errors, excesses or abuse of power by the Executive President. But (with rare and courageous exceptions like Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia) the Legislature cravenly collapsed before the father-son Bush presidencies in regard to the Middle East wars of recent years. America’s once-revered federal judiciary has also tended to lose its independence of mind with overt politicisation of judicial appointments in recent decades.

Bush the First went to war against Saddam Hussein (a former American ally against Islamic Iran) at least partly with an eye to winning re-election in 1992 (which he would have done as a result but for a random shock known as Ross Perot; Bill Clinton became the beneficiary). Bush the Second obsessively wished to follow up on the same, to the point of misjudging the real threat to America from Bin Laden and fabricating a false threat from an emasculated Saddam.

America’s Legislature palpably failed to control her Presidents. Now, late in the day, after all the horses have bolted, the Senate Judiciary Committee began tepid hearings on February 5 2006 into whether the President authorized laws to be broken with impunity in regard to wire-tapping some 5,000 citizens (doubtless mostly non-white and Muslim) without judicial warrants. Republican Senator Arlen Specter, the Committee’s Chairman, has said he believes the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has been “flatly” violated, and “strained and unrealistic” justifications are now being offered. Bush’s men, from his Vice President and Attorney General to political intelligence operatives, have brazenly placed in the dustbin the traditional principle fiat justitia pereat mundus — let justice be done even if the world perishes — saying that the Sovereign can do just as he pleases to save the realm from external enemies as he might perceive and define them to be.

What this kind of collapse in current American practice reveals is a new aspect unknown at the time of Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws. In the modern world, Separation of Powers involves not merely constitutional institutions like Executive, Legislature and Judiciary but also the normal civil institutions of a free and open society, especially academic institutions and the press. In America, it has been not merely the Legislature and Judiciary which have tended to collapse before Executive Power in regard to the recent Middle East wars, but the media and academia as well.

“Embedded reporters” and Fox TV set the tone for America’s official thought processes about Iraq and the Muslim world — until it has become too late for America’s mainstream media or academics to recover their own credibility on the subject. On the other hand, unofficial public opinion has, in America’s best traditions, demonstrated using vast numbers of Internet websites and weblogs, a spirited Yankee Doodle individuality against the jingoism and war-mongering of the official polity.

Neither the press nor academia had collapsed the same way during America’s last major foreign wars in Vietnam and Cambodia forty years ago, and it may be fairly said that America’s self-knowledge was rather better then than it is now, except of course there were no Internet websites and weblogs.

Our Pakistani Cousins
Across the border from us, our Pakistani cousins are, from a political and constitutional point of view, cut from the same cloth as ourselves, namely the 1935 Government of India Act, and the Montague-Chelmsford and Morley-Minto reforms earlier. However, ever since Jinnah’s death, they have refused to admit this and instead embarked haplessly on what can only be called an injudicious path of trying to write a Constitution for a new Caliphate. The primary demand of the main scholars influencing this process was “That the sovereignty in Pakistan belongs to God Almighty alone and that the Government of Pakistan shall administer the country as His agent”. By such a view, in the words of Rashid Rida and Maulana Maududi, Islam becomes “the very antithesis of secular Western democracy. The philosophical foundation of Western democracy is the sovereignty of the people. Lawmaking is their prerogative and legislation must correspond to the mood and temper of their opinion… Islam… altogether repudiates the philosophy of popular sovereignty and rears its polity on the foundations of the sovereignty of God and the viceregency (Khilafat) of man.” (Rosenthal, Islam & the Modern National State, Cambridge 1965.) Pakistan’s few modern constitutionalists have been ever since battling impossibly to overcome the ontological error made here of assuming that any mundane government can be in communication with God Almighty. In the meantime, all normal branches of Pakistan’s polity, like the electorate, press, political parties, Legislature and Judiciary, have remained at best in ill-formed inchoate states of being — while the Pakistan Armed Forces stepped in with their own large economic and political interests and agendas to effectively take over the country and the society as a whole, on pretext of protecting Pakistan from India or of gaining J&K for it. Pakistan’s political problems have the ontological error at their root. Pakistan’s political parties, academics and press, have with rare exceptions remained timid in face of the militaristic State — directing their anger and frustration at an easier target instead, namely ourselves in India. The Pakistan Government’s way of silencing its few political, academic or press dissidents has been to send them into comfortable exile abroad.

Sheikh Abdullah Contrasted
Pakistan’s perpetual constitutional confusion deserves to be contrasted with the clarity of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah’s thinking, e.g. his 5 November 1951 speech to the Constituent Assembly of J&K: “You are the sovereign authority in this State of Jammu & Kashmir; what you decide has the irrevocable force of law. The basic democratic principle of sovereignty of the nation, embodied ably in the American and French Constitutions, is once again given shape in our midst. I shall quote the famous words of Article 3 of the French Constitution of 1791:- ‘The source of all sovereignty resides fundamentally in the nation. Sovereignty is one and indivisible, inalienable and imprescriptable. It belongs to the nation.’ We should be clear about the responsibilities that this power invests us with. In front of us lie decisions of the highest national importance which we shall be called upon to take. Upon the correctness of our decisions depends not only the happiness of our land and people now, but the fate as well of generations to come.”

Contrasting the Pakistani views of constitution-making with those of Sheikh Abdullah may help to explain a great deal about where we are today on the delicate and profound subject of J&K. (See “Solving Kashmir”, The Statesman, December 1—3, 2005)

India’s current debate about Separation of Powers needs to keep at a distance the clear negative examples of our American friends, who have brought upon themselves in recent times a craven collapse of Legislature, Judiciary, press and academia to the Executive President (as Churchill had seemed to predict), as well as of our Pakistani cousins who have continued with general political and civil collapse for half a century. Because our universities are all owned by the State, India’s academics, from Communist to Fascist, have tended to be servile towards it. In respect of the press, the power of independent newspapers has been dwindling, while the new TV anchors have created their own models of obsequiousness and chummery towards New Delhi’s ruling cliques of the day. It thus becomes India’s Supreme Court which remains the ultimate guardian of our Constitution and the safest haven of our very fragile freedoms — besides of course our own minds and hearts.

The Sunday Statesman 12 February 2006
The Statesman 13 February 2006

Communists and Constitutions

COMMUNISTS & CONSTITUTIONS

By SUBROTO ROY
first published in The Sunday Statesman, Editorial Page, Special Article,

January 22, 2006

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is img_20210710_171504.jpg

Constitutions and communists do not go together. The most glaring example comes from Russia — the Motherland not only of modern communism but also of great brave individual souls like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Andrei Sakharov, and the many other men and women who struggled to defeat communism there over seven decades. Before Russia managed to liberate herself from communism — i.e. before the Communist Party of the Soviet Union began under Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin to liberate itself from itself in the late 1980s — the only genuine elections that ever occurred in the country were to the Constituent Assembly of November 1917.

That Constituent Assembly was a multiparty legislative body and it happened to have a large anti-Bolshevik majority. It met only once in January 1918 and was destroyed under Lenin immediately because it quite naturally refused to adopt Bolshevik proposals. Under the Czar, the “Constitutional Democratic Party” (the “Cadets”), formed in 1905, “constituted the most dangerous ranks of revolution”. Under the government of the proletariat, the very same Cadet Party represented “the most dangerous ranks of reaction” (Solzhenitsyn). Constitutionalists inevitably end up battling both the Fascists of the Right and the Communists of the Left. As Hannah Arendt made clear, the organisation of totalitarian governments whether of Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s USSR or Mao’s China were remarkably similar in nature. Upon seizing power in November 1917, Russia’s Bolsheviks attacked the constitutionalists first, outlawing the Cadet Party and arresting its members, and doing the same to students, workers and soldiers associated with the “Alliance for the Constituent Assembly”.

This is not a coincidence. Communists and fascists are powered by instincts of grabbing State political power for themselves any which way they can, in order to impose by brute force on everyone else the rather shoddy obsolete ideologies they subscribe to themselves. Karl Marx himself most famously said the words “I am not a Marxist”. Communists and fascists cannot stand the idea of the anonymous individual citizen standing up on his or her own; their instinct is one which cannot attribute credit to the individual person for any good that may be done, instead purloining it into a fake “collective” effort. Similarly, errors cannot be simply acknowledged, and instead responsibility is diffused all around until nobody remembers who said or did what or when, and all history becomes a jumble.

Every great scientific and artistic achievement has been an expression of individual genius, often against the reactionary collective will. And constitutions from Magna Carta onwards have been built on the idea of protecting the anonymous, powerless individual citizen against the violent arbitrary power of the established State and its comprador organisations. Britain and America may have contributed their share of evil to world history but they have made up for at least some of it by pioneering Anglo-Saxon constitutional jurisprudence. It may be no coincidence Britain and America have been home to the greatest outpourings of human creativity and invention in modern times, from the steam engine to the Internet.

In fact it has been a singularly American contribution to pioneer the very idea that parliamentary majorities themselves need to be restrained from their own baser proclivities. In 1767, before America had herself become free from British rule, the British Parliament once issued a declaration that a parliamentary majority could pass any law it saw fit. It was greeted with an outcry of horror in Britain’s American colonies. Patrick Henry of Virginia — later famous for his cry “Give me Liberty or give me Death” — led the battle for the anonymous free individual citizen against the arbitrary power that comes to be represented by the herd or mob instincts even of elected parliamentary majorities. Constitutions are written to protect parliaments and peoples from themselves.

The philosopher John Wisdom, who translated the subtle work of Wittgenstein and Freud into normal idioms, once said: “Sometimes a society acts as if all power lay in the hands of the most babyish and animal members, and sometimes as if all power lay in the hands of strict old men, and sometimes it acts more as a whole — mostly when there’s a war on. Sometimes a man is not himself and acts as if a babyish or cunning animal had gained control — that’s the id — sometimes as if an exacting parent, a sarcastic schoolmaster, or an implacable deity possessed him — that’s the super-ego. Sometimes a man is more himself and acts more as a whole, a new whole which is not a combination but a synthesis of the id and the super-ego. Some are constantly at the mercy of the id, some are slaves to the super-ego, and in some first one and then the other gains an unhappy victory in a continual struggle, and in some conflict and control have vanished into cooperation…”

Similarly, we may say that political processes in any country appear to often give play to the most “babyish” and “cunning animal” instincts of the society, while at other times the “strict old men” or “exacting parent” take over. The constant struggle of political reasonableness is to find the rational, normal national self that rests in between.

India at present has been set upon an unproductive and pointless course of inevitable Constitutional collision between Parliament and the Supreme Court. That course has been singly set by the present Speaker even though every attempt is being made now to diffuse his responsibility for the situation that has arisen, so that soon nobody will be able to remember exactly what happened or why. The incumbent Speaker, instead of being wholly self-effacing as called for by the job-requirements of the high and grave office he holds, has remained too much of a normal parliamentary advocate. Before grave irreparable damage comes to be done to India’s Parliamentary and Constitutional traditions, he needs to return at once to the Front Benches of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) as a distinguished senior Member of the House, and from there make whatever arguments he wishes about Parliament’s rights under the Constitution. The high self-effacing office of the Speaker is not from where such arguments as he has been making should be made — unless India’s Parliament and Constitution are soon to be thrown into the dustbin for ever (as has similarly happened for half a century across the border with our Pakistani cousins).

The incumbent Speaker is right that the Supreme Court does not oversee Parliament. The Supreme Court oversees something greater than Parliament, namely, India’s Constitution. Parliament, its Speaker, its Prime Minister, the President of India, and the Supreme Court itself are all creatures of the Constitution. However, the Constitution of India that was adopted on 26 January 1950 is not sui generis a creature of itself. It is the outcome of a clear and well-known constitutional history which has among its modern milestones the Government of India Act of 1935, and thence all the ancient milestones of Anglo-American constitutional jurisprudence going back to Magna Carta. And India’s Supreme Court — sitting not in any of its normal division benches but as a Constitutional Bench — does indeed have jurisdiction, indeed it has sole jurisdiction, over whether India’s Constitution is being made to suffer crimes or misdemeanours at the hands of India’s Government or Parliament of the day. For the Speaker to decline to receive a notice from the High Court is an irrelevancy; many people who are served notices ignore them; it does not reduce jurisdiction by an iota. An “All-Party” meeting of MPs can rail all it wants against the Supreme Court — even the whole of the present Parliament can pass as many unanimous resolutions as they want against the Supreme Court. They will only make themselves look silly and petulant in the eyes of history. As for the BJP Opposition in particular, the present situation may make it perfectly clear that there is not among them a single, principled, liberal constitutionalist hidden in their proto-fascistic ranks.

Unaccountable Delhi: India’s Separation of Powers’ Doctrine

UNACCOUNTABLE DELHI

India’s Separation Of Powers’ Doctrine

First published in The Statesman Jan 13 2006 Editorial Page Special Article,

By Subroto Roy

The Speaker does not like the fact the High Court has issued notices questioning the procedure he followed in expelling MPs from Parliament. Sonia Gandhi’s self-styled “National Advisory Council” has demanded control over disbursement of 100,000,000,000 rupees of public money. The Manmohan Singh Government plans to quietly ignore the Supreme Court’s finding that it had breached India’s Constitution in imposing President’s Rule in Bihar.  All three issues have to do with application of India’s Separation of Powers Doctrine, i.e. the appropriate delimitation of Constitutional powers between our Legislature, Executive and Judiciary.

A constitutional crime was attempted in India during the Indira-Sanjay Gandhi political “Emergency” declared on 26 June 1975. On 10 November 1975 (a time of press censorship) a 13-judge Bench of the Supreme Court met to hear the Government plead for overrule of Kesavananda Bharati (A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1461), a landmark Nani Palkhivala once called “the greatest contribution of the Republic of India to constitutional jurisprudence”. Within two days, the Government had failed in the Court, and Kesavananda held. What was upheld? That while India’s Parliament was sovereign and could amend the Constitution, the amending power may not be used to alter or destroy “the basic structure or framework of the Constitution”. And the Supreme Court decides for itself whether Parliament has exceeded its legitimate power to amend.

Basic structure
Palkhivala’s description of what constitutes the “basic structure or framework” of India’s Constitution is excellent enough: “the rule of law, the right to personal liberty and freedom from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, the right to dissent which implies the freedom of speech and expression and a free press are… a part of the basic structure of a free democracy, and it is these priceless human freedoms which cannot be destroyed by Parliament in exercise of its amending power. Thus Kesavananda’s case ensures that tyranny and despotism shall not masquerade as constitutionalism.”

Palkhivala argued that, if anything, the aspects of Kesavananda that needed to be set aside were those that had over-ruled Golaknath (A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1643) which said Parliament should not be held to have the power to abridge any fundamental right, indeed any amended article which abrogates any fundamental right is invalid.

Dicey said “In the principle of the distribution of powers which determines its form, the constitution of the United States is the exact opposite of the English constitution.” Kesavananda Bharati showed the midway point between the two in constitutional jurisprudence anywhere in the world. We are like the Americans and unlike the British first in being a Republic, and secondly in having an explicit written Constitution. We are like the British and unlike the Americans in being a parliamentary democracy where the Executive Branch of Government, namely the Prime Minister and his/her Cabinet is elected from within the Legislative Branch of Government, namely, Parliament, and must at all times retain the confidence of the latter, specifically the Lok Sabha, the House of the People.

The American Executive Branch has a directly-elected President who chooses his administration, and it is commonplace for him to not have the confidence of the Upper or Lower House of the Legislature, to the point that one recent president had to undergo impeachment proceedings and barely survived. There is no constitutional crisis in America if the Legislature loathes the President and wishes him out. The American President and his Executive Branch stay in office until the last minute of his fixed term.

PM answers to Parliament
In our system, the Prime Minister answers at all times to Parliament. Parliament in India’s democracy has normally meant the House of the People — where every member has contested and won a direct vote in his/her constituency. India’s current Lok Sabha has set a constitutional precedent not seen in more than a hundred years anywhere in electing an Executive led by someone not a member. The British Upper House used to have an aristocratic hereditary component which Mr Blair’s New Labour Government has removed, making it more like what the Rajya Sabha was supposed to be — except that by now our Rajya Sabha has tended to become a place for party worthies who have lost normal elections, superannuated cinematic personalities, perpetual bureaucrats still seeking office, and others who really should be at home helping to raise the grandchildren.  Parliament may not have fully recovered its health ever since that constitutional crime committed against the Republic known as the Indira-Sanjay “Emergency” (and at least one member of Sanjay’s coterie wields much power today).

Crimes and misdemeanours
The Supreme Court’s finding that the Government breached the Constitution by imposing President’s Rule in Bihar is a finding not of a constitutional crime but of a constitutional misdemeanour. (For reasons given already in these columns on 20 October 2005, it has nothing to do with the President, who merely embodies the sovereignty of our Republic.)  For an Executive Order or Legislative Act to be found by a competent Court as being unconstitutional means merely that it does not have to be obeyed by citizens. In the Bihar case, the Supreme Court found this consequence irrelevant because new elections were already in process, the result of which would come from the most authentic democratic voice possible, namely, the same people who elect the House of the People in the first place. India’s Executive has been found to have committed a constitutional misdemeanour, for which it needed to apologise to the Court and Parliament (who are its constitutional co-equals) and then ask the latter to renew its confidence — in which event, life goes on. If confidence was not renewed, the Government would fall and a new Government would have to be formed. But we do not have yet the idea of a backbench revolt —mainly because all the front benches themselves have tended to be in such confusion and disarray with regard to parliamentary traditions, processes and functions.

The Supreme Court as the ultimate protector of the Constitution would be well within its prerogative to oversee whether a Parliamentary Speaker has acted appropriately. Consider a hypothetical case. Once elected, a Speaker is supposed to have no party-affiliation ever more for the rest of his/her life. Suppose, hypothetically, a controlled experiment found a Speaker systematically biased in favour of his/her own former party-members and against their opponents. Where but the Courts could such arbitrariness be effectively remonstrated against? Even if the incumbent Speaker impossibly imagines himself the personal embodiment of the Legislative Branch, he is not beyond the Constitution and therefore not beyond India’s Separation of Powers’ Doctrine.

The Opposition had alleged that the Speaker failed to follow procedure which required the culprits in the expulsion case be referred to the Privileges Committee. But beyond that the Opposition was too confused and guilt-ridden to pursue the matter during the dying moments of Parliament’s Winter Session. In the clear light of day, the issue has now ended up in the Courts. If the Supreme Court eventually rules the Speaker had in fact failed to follow Parliament’s own procedures (and hence breached Constitutional practices), the Speaker would need to apologise to the Courts and the House that elected him, and perhaps offer to fall on his sword.

Finally, for the “National Advisory Council”, a wholly unelected body, to demand a say for itself over spending Rs. 100 billion in State and Union Government budget-making, would be another constitutional misdemeanour — unless its members are merely on the personal staff of the Hon’ble Member representing Rae Bareili, who may of course introduce whatever legislation on money-bills that any other Lok Sabha Member may do.

Assessing Vajpayee: Hindutva True and False (2005)

Assessing Vajpayee: Hindutva True and False

by

Subroto Roy

First published in The Sunday Statesman, Nov 13 2005 and The Statesman, Nov 14 2005, Editorial Page Special Article

Atal Behari Vajpayee, mentored by Shyama Prasad Mookerjee himself, became Prime Minister of India for less than a fortnight in 1996, then again in 1998 and again in 1999 and remained so until he was voted out in 2004.

He became PM holding the trust of India’s 120 million Muslims. He was supposed to be the genial, avuncular “good cop” who would keep at bay the harsh forces represented by the unpredictable “bad cop”, his Deputy PM and long-time colleague LK Advani. It was the first time RSS members had come to lead India’s government. How is the Vajpayee-Advani duumvirate to be candidly assessed? The question is important not only for the RSS and BJP engaged in their own introspection and petty politics but for the country as a whole. India needs both a competent Government and a competent Opposition in Parliament, and it is not clear we have ever had either.

Overall, Vajpayee-Advani, as the chief public symbols of the RSS-BJP, earned relatively high marks in office handling India’s strategic and security interests, including the nuclear issue and Pakistan. Equally, they failed badly in their treatment of India’s Muslims and religious minorities in general. This is a paradox that can be explained by the general failure of putative Hindutvadis to acquire an objective understanding of the processes that had led to Independence, Partition, and Pakistan’s creation.

Roughly, their comprehension of these processes has been one which sees all Muslims everywhere as cut from the same communal cloth, regardless of the beliefs or actions of individual Muslims. In such prejudiced eyes, there is no conceptual or ultimate difference between a Jinnah and an Azad, between a Salauddin who attacks India at Kargil and a Lt Hanifuddin who dies for India at Kargil. This is the product of a sloppy and erroneous philosophy of history, which in turn is an outcome of an attitude towards modern science and modes of rigorous reasoning that can only be called backward and retrograde.

It has been signalled most conspicuously by the extremely public adherence of many putative Hindutvadis (and millions of other Indians) to astrology — in apparent ignorance of the fact that all horoscopes assume the Sun rotates around Earth. Astrology, a European invention, came to decline in Europe after the discoveries of Copernicus and Galileo became widely understood there.

Like Indian Communists, Hindutvadi ideologues with rare exceptions played no role in the movement that led to Indian independence in 1947 and creation of the modern Indian Republic in 1950. They remained to their credit constantly suspicious of and hostile towards the foreign phenomena that were Bolshevism, Stalinism and Maoism. They remained to their discredit constantly suspicious of and hostile towards Indian Muslims, even at one point seeing virtuous lessons in Hitler’s attitude towards the Jews. They have in their own way subscribed to Ein Reich, Ein Volk but fortunately have always failed to find Ein Fuhrer (on a pattern e.g. of a modern “Netaji”).

Where Nazis saw communists and Jews in conspiracies everywhere, Hindutvadi ideologues have tended to see communists and Muslims, and also Christians and “Macaulayite” Hindus, in conspiracies everywhere. (An equal methodological admiration for Nazism occurred on the part of Muslims in the 1930s led by Rahmat Ali, the Pakistani ideologue — who saw “caste Hindus” as the root of all evil and in conspiracies everywhere.) The paradox of the RSS-BJP success in handling nuclear and security issues quite well and domestic issues of secular governance badly, is explained by this ideology of double hostility towards communism and Muslims.

On the positive side, Vajpayee-Advani advocated a tough clear-headed realpolitik on the issue of Indian’s security. “We should go nuclear and sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty as a nuclear weapons’ state. The whole world will recognise us by our power. We don’t want to be blackmailed and treated as oriental blackies. Nuclear weapons will give us prestige, power, standing. An Indian will talk straight and walk straight when we have the bomb”. That is what the BJP told the New York Times in 1993.

Three years later, the moment Vajpayee first entered office as PM in May 1996, the government’s scientists who had already secretly assembled the bomb for testing, were instructed to stand by for orders to go ahead. Vajpayee did not know if his Government would survive the vote of confidence required of them. When it was pointed out that if he tested the bomb and lost the vote, a successor Government would have to cope with the consequences, Vajpayee, to his credit and reflecting his political experience and maturity, cancelled the test. When he lost the vote, the public demonstration of Indian nuclear weapons capability was also postponed until May 1998, after he had returned as PM a second time. The bomb was a celebration of Hindu, or more generally, Indian independence in the world. India had nominally freed herself from the British but not from Western culture, according to the RSS. Where the Congress had been in the grip of world communism, the RSS-BJP led India to nuclear freedom – such was their propaganda.

In reality, a long line of prime ministers including Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, VP Singh and IK Gujral had authorised India’s bomb, and a long line of scientists starting with Homi Bhabha had developed it over several decades.

Vajpayee’s decision finally flushed out Pakistan’s clandestine nuclear weapons developed with North Korea and China. Pakistan is an overtly Islamist state where liberal democracy shows no signs of starting even 65 years after the Lahore Resolution. Its nuclear bombs remain a far greater threat to the world than anyone else’s. Moreover, while India has renounced first use of such weapons, Pakistan has not only not done so, its Foreign Minister Gohar Ayub Khan boasted in 1998-1999 that the next war would be over in two hours with an Indian surrender.

Such glib talk about nuclear war is beyond contempt in its irresponsibility. A study by medical doctors estimated that a Hiroshima-sized bombing of Mumbai would cause 9 million deaths from blast, firestorms, radiation and fallout. An Indian retaliation would end Pakistan’s existence (though the Pakistani super-elite has long ago fled with its assets to Britain and America). An India-Pakistan nuclear exchange would leave a vast wasteland, finally ending all intellectual controversies about Partition and Jinnah’s theory. In reality, each is hardly able to cope with natural calamities like earthquakes, cyclones and floods, and also has very grave macroeconomic crises brewing because of unending deficit-finance and unlimited printing of paper money. For either to imagine itself a major power is a vain boast regardless of the polite flattery from visiting foreign businessmen. Of course, while each remains the principal enemy of the other, neither is a serious military force in the world.

After the exchange of nuclear tests in 1998, Vajpayee took the bus across the Wagah border to meet Nawaz Sharif in February 1999. He claimed it was a diplomatic and psychological breakthrough as indeed it was for a moment. But it had not been his original idea. AM Khusro, who accompanied him on the bus, had worked with Rajiv Gandhi in 1990-1991 when Rajiv was advised to make such a Sadat-like move. Furthermore, Vajpayee failed to see the significance of the Pakistani military chiefs led by Pervez Musharraf refusing to meet him formally, which would have entailed saluting him when he was their enemy.

Vajpayee also may not have known the Pakistani monument he visited was later “purified” with rose water by orthodox Muslim believers. So much for Indian diplomatic triumphs or Pakistan’s diplomatic niceties towards their kaffir guest. BJP foreign ministers later ingratiated themselves with Ariel Sharon because he was an enemy of Muslims — though again the BJP seemed unaware that “a single hair” shorn from idol-worshipping Hindu women at Tirupathi was enough for orthodox rabbis to declare as “impure” the wigs worn by Jewish women made from such hair. The evil of “untouchability” has not been a “caste Hindu” monopoly.

 

Kargil war

According to the Sharif-Musharraf plan secretly brewing during Vajpayee’s Pakistan visit, the Kargil infiltration followed. India’s Army and Air Force gamely fought back in the initial weeks suffering relatively severe losses, but the country seemed mesmerised by World Cup cricket and there was no significant political leadership from Vajpayee’s Government until the second week of June 1999. It was only after Brajesh Mishra was provoked by an analysis of how Pakistan might actually succeed (with the possibility of hidden Pakistani plans of a blitzkrieg and missile attacks), that Vajpayee’s Government seemed to wake up from its stupor, mobilised forces rapidly and threatened Pakistan with direst consequences, a threat made credible because it was conveyed by Mishra via the Americans. The Pakistanis backed down, which led soon to Musharraf’s coup détat against Sharif, and the world has had to deal with a Pakistani state synonymous with Musharraf ever since. The Vajpayee-Advani military triumph at Kargil was short-lived, as it was followed within months by an abject surrender to the Taliban’s terrorists at Kandahar airport.

In the meantime, on 23 January 1999, the Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two young sons were murdered by a savage anti-Christian mob as they slept in their car in rural Orissa. Vajpayee, the agreeable face of the RSS-BJP with allegedly impeccable secular credentials, responded without the moral strength that was necessary from a leader of all of India’s people. It was a model of weakness of political will and comprehension that would be followed in the larger catastrophe to occur in Gujarat.

On 27 February 2002, a train approaching Godhra station had a bunch of travelling rowdies bullying ticketed passengers, ticket-collectors and local tea-vendors. The vendors belonged to a lowly Muslim caste whose members were entrenched around Godhra and the nearby Signal Falia. During an extended stop at Godhra station, the altercations grew fiercer — the rowdies forcing people to shout slogans and roughing them up when they did not. False rumours flew that the rowdies had molested a Muslim woman and her two daughters who had been waiting on the platform. As the train left Godhra, a gang of rioters led by one tea-shop owner and other tea-vendors gathered before Signal Falia, stopped the train and assaulted it with stones and petrol-bombs.

One whole compartment was completely burnt, scores of passengers, including 26 women and 12 children, were incinerated, many of whom remain unidentified. (Some of those supposed to be in the compartment according to Railway lists were later found alive and well, as they had moved due to the rowdyism.) Throughout the day, Godhra District Collector Jayanthi Ravi stated on television and radio that a riot had occurred and appealed for calm. But after 7 pm, the State’s political executive called it a “pre-planned violent act of terrorism”, and an organised pogrom began against Muslims across the State. Over several weeks, thousands were killed and raped and turned into refugees inside their own country.

 

Political patronage

Gujarat’s chief political executive, a Vajpayee-Advani protégé, should have been immediately held accountable; instead he continued to receive their political patronage. Vajpayee, en route to a planned business trip abroad, made a perfunctory visit to the scene of the civil horror, then proceeded to Singapore, where he was shown moving around on a golf-cart wearing designer goggles. He had clearly failed to grasp the dimensions or the gravity of the nature of the office he held. Vajpayee thus came to lose the trust of India’s Muslims and minorities in general which he had earned by his moderation and maturity over many decades in the Opposition. The RSS-BJP had lost, perhaps permanently, the last opportunity to make their actions tally with their sweet words about a united Indian people living in bliss in a common sacred Motherland.

Vajpayee’s finance and economic planning ministers were as ignorant of the reality of India’s macroeconomics as the Stalinist New Delhi bureaucrats pampered by Congress and its Communist friends. These bureaucrats continued in power under Vajpayee. Plus the RSS’s pseudo-economists were enough to scare away all except a minor econometrician and a shallow economic historian. The latter led the BJP up the garden path in 2003-2004 with talk about India’s economy being on the point of “take off” (based on defunct American theory from the 1960s), which misled them into the “India Shining” campaign and electoral defeat. The BJP finance minister, thus misled, revealed his own ignorance of his job-requirements when he happily spoke on TV of how much he sympathised with businessmen who had told him CBI, CVC and CAG were the initials holding India back from this (bogus) “take off”. Equally innocent of economics, the BJP’s planning chief went about promising vast government subsidies to already-rich Indians abroad to become “venture capitalists” in India! Instead of reversing the woeful Stalinism of the Congress decades overall, Vajpayee’s Government super-imposed a crony capitalism upon it. Budgetary discipline was not even begun to be sought — another BJP finance minister revelling publicly in his ignorance of Maynard Keynes.

The signal of monetary crisis that was the UTI fiasco was papered over with more paper money printing. Privatisation was briefly made a fetish — despite there being sound conservative reasons not to privatise in India until the fiscal and monetary haemorrhaging is stopped. Liquidating real assets prior to a likely massive inflation of paper assets caused by deficit-financing, is not a public good.

RSS members and protégés appointed to government posts and placed in charge of government moneys revealed themselves as corrupt and nepotistic as anyone else. The overall failure of the management of India’s public institutions and organs of State continued under Vajpayee-Advani just as it had done for decades earlier. Vajpayee-Advani evinced no vision of a modern political economy as reformers of other major countries have done, such as Thatcher, Reagan, Gorbachev-Yeltsin, Adenauer-Erhardt, De Gaulle, even Deng Tsiaoping.

Irrational obsession

The overall explanation of the ideological and practical failure of the putative Hindutvadis must have to do with their irrational obsession over two decades with the masjid-mandir issue. Ramayana and Mahabharata are magnificent mythological epics yet they are incidental aspects of the faith and culture deriving from the Vedas and Upanishads. The motive force of a true Hindutva is already contained in the simple Upanishadic motto of the Indian Republic, Satyameva jayathe (let truth prevail) which is almost all the religion that anyone may need. The search for all truth necessarily requires individual freedom, and taking its first steps would require the RSS-BJP denouncing all their backward pseudo-science and anti-science. Who among them will liberate them from the clutches of astrology, and bring instead the fresh air and light of modern science since Copernicus and Galileo? Without rigorous modern reasoning, the RSS and BJP are condemned to their misunderstanding of themselves and of India, just as surely as their supposed enemies — literalist Muslim believers — are committed to a flat earth and an implacably stern heaven placed above it. Pakistan’s finest academic has reported how his colleagues pass off as physics the measurement of earth receding from heaven if Einstein and The Qúran could be amalgamated. The RSS and BJP need to free themselves from similar irrational backwardness in all fields, including politics and economics. It is plain Vajpayee, Advani or any of their existing political progeny cannot lead themselves, or Indians in general, to that promised land.

US Espionage Failures (2005)

US Espionage Failures

(There is a hippopotamus in the room)

First published in The Statesman Perspective Page under the title “Flunking inteligence” Oct 26 2005

by

Subroto Roy

There have been three or four enormous failures of American espionage (i.e. intelligence and counter-intelligence) in the last 20 years. The collapse of the Berlin Wall and the end of Soviet communism were salubrious events but they had not been foreseen by the United States which was caught unawares by the speed and nature of the developments that took place. Other failures have been catastrophic.

First, there was the failure to prevent the attack that took place on the American mainland on September 11 2001. It killed several thousand civilians and caused vast, perhaps irreparable, psychological and physical destruction to the United States.

The attack was without precedent. The December 7 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in Hawaii, though a surprise, was carried out by one military against another military and did not affect very many civilians (except that thousands of American civilians of Japanese ancestry came to be persecuted and placed in concentration camps for years by the US Government). And the last time the American mainland had been attacked before 2001 was in 1814 when British troops marched south from Canada and burnt down the Capitol and the US President’s house in Washington.

Secondly, there has been a failure to discover any reasonable justification for the American-led attack on Iraq and its invasion and occupation. Without any doubt, America has lost, at the very least, an incalculable amount of international goodwill as a result of this, let aside suffering two thousand young soldiers killed, fifteen thousand wounded, and an unending cost in terms of prestige and resources in return for the thinnest of tangible gains. India at great cost liberated East Pakistan from the brutal military tyranny of Yahya Khan and Tikka Khan in December 1971 but the average Bangladeshi today could hardly care less. Regardless of what form of government emerges in Iraq now, there is no doubt the mass of the Iraqi people will cheer the departure of the bulk of foreign troops and tanks from their country (even if a permanent set of a dozen hermetically sealed American bases remain there for ever, as appears to have been planned).

When things go wrong in any democracy, it is natural and healthy to set up a committee to investigate, and America has done that several times now. For such committees to have any use at all they must be as candid as possible and perhaps the most candid of the American committees has been the US Government’s 9/11 Commission. But it too has appeared no closer to finding out who was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks or who financed it and who, precisely, executed it. Osama Bin Laden may have been the ideological head of a movement allied to the perpetrators, and Bin Laden undoubtedly expressed his glee afterwards, but it beggars the imagination that Bin Laden could have been executive president in charge of this operation while crawling around Sudan, Pakistan and Afghanistan. If not him, then whom? Mossad the Israeli spy agency was supposed to have pointed to a super-secret invisible Lebanese terrorist but nobody really knows. The biggest modern mass murder remains unsolved.

As for solutions, the American 9/11 Commission went into the same politically correct formulae that came to be followed in 2005 by British PM Tony Blair’s New Labour Cabinet, namely, that “moderate” peace-loving Muslims must be encouraged and bribed not to turn to terrorism (indeed to expose those among them who do), while “extremist” Muslims must be stamped out with brute force. This rests on a mistaken premise that an economic carrot-and-stick policy can work in creating a set of external incentives and disincentives for Muslims, when in fact believing Muslims, like many other religious believers, are people who feel the power of their religion deep within themselves and so are unlikely to be significantly affected by external incentives or disincentives offered by non-believers.

Another committee has been the United States Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence which reported in July 2004, and from whose findings have stemmed as an offshoot the current matter about whether high government officials broke the law that is being investigated by Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald.

Bertrand Russell said in his obituary of Ludwig Wittgenstein that he had once gone about looking under all the tables and chairs to prove to Wittgenstein that there was not a hippopotamus present in the room. In the present case, however, there is in fact a very large hippopotamus present in the room yet the entire American foreign policy establishment has seemed to refuse to wish to see it. Saddam Hussain and OBL are undoubtedly certifiable members of the international gallery of rogues – but the central fact remains they were rogues who were in alliance with America’s defined strategic interests in the 1980s. Saddam Hussain’s Iraq invaded Iran in 1980 and gassed the Kurds in 1986; an Iraqi Mirage on May 17 1987 fired two Exocet missiles at the USS Stark killing 37 American sailors and injuring 21. The Americans did nothing. The reason was that Saddam was still in favour at the time and had not yet become a demon in the political mythology of the American state, and it was expedient for nothing to be done. Indeed Saddam’s Iraq was explicitly removed in 1982 from the US Government’s list of states sponsoring terrorism because, according to the State Department’s Patterns of Global Terrorism, it had “moved closer to the policies of its moderate Arab neighbours”.

The very large hippopotamus that is present in the room at the moment is April Glaspie, the highly regarded professional career diplomat and American Ambassador to Iraq at the time of the 1990 Gulf War. Saddam Hussein as President had a famous meeting with her on July 25 1990, eight days before he invaded Kuwait. The place was the Presidential Palace in Baghdad and the Iraqis videotaped the meeting:

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie – “I have direct instructions from President (George Herbert Walker) Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship – not confrontation – regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait’s borders?

Saddam Hussein – As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.

U. S. Ambassador Glaspie – What solutions would be acceptable?

Saddam Hussein – If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab – our strategic goal in our war with Iran – we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam’ s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States’ opinion on this?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie – We have no opinion on your Arab – Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960’s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)

Saddam had seen himself fighting Islamic Iran on behalf of the Kuwaitis, Saudis and other Arabs, and Islamic Iran was of course the sworn adversary of the USA at least since Khomeini had deposed America’s ally, the Shah. Therefore Saddam could not be all bad in the eyes of the State Department. On August 2 1990, the Iraqi troops seen by American satellites amassed on the border, invaded and occupied Kuwait.

On September 2 1990, the Iraqis released the videotape and transcript of the July 29 Saddam-Glaspie meeting and Glaspie was confronted by British journalists as she left the Embassy:

Journalist 1 – Are the transcripts (holding them up) correct, Madam Ambassador? (No answer from Glaspie)

Journalist 2 – You knew Saddam was going to invade (Kuwait ) but you didn’t warn him not to. You didn’t tell him America would defend Kuwait. You told him the opposite – that America was not associated with Kuwait.

Journalist 1 – You encouraged this aggression – his invasion. What were you thinking?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie – Obviously, I didn’t think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait.

Journalist 1 – You thought he was just going to take some of it? But, how could you? Saddam told you that, if negotiations failed , he would give up his Iran(Shatt al Arab waterway) goal for the whole of Iraq, in the shape we wish it to be. You know that includes Kuwait, which the Iraqis have always viewed as a historic part of their country!

Journalist 1 – America green-lighted the invasion. At a minimum, you admit signalling Saddam that some aggression was okay – that the U.S. would not oppose a grab of the al-Rumeilah oil field, the disputed border strip and the Gulf Islands (including Bubiyan) – the territories claimed by Iraq?

Glaspie said nothing, the car door closed behind her, the car drove off. Nothing has been apparently heard from Glaspie ever since, and we may have to wait for her memoirs in 25 years when they are declassified to come to know what happened. It is astonishing, however, that the 521 page report of the US Senate’s Select Committee on espionage about Iraq before the 2003 war finds no cause whatsoever to mention Glaspie at all (at least in its public censored version). It is almost as if Glaspie has never existed and her conversation with Saddam never happened. Glaspie has disappeared down an Orwellian memory-hole. Yet her conversation with Saddam was the last official, recorded conversation between the Americans and Saddam while they were still on friendly terms.

There may be many causes explaining how such serious failures have come to occur in a country where billions of dollars have been annually spent on espionage. Among them must be that while America’s great strengths have included creation of the finest advanced scientific and technological base on earth, America’s great intellectual weaknesses in recent decades have included an impatience with historical and philosophical reflection of all sorts, and that includes reflection about her own as well as other cultures. This is exemplified too in the third palpable failure of intelligence of the last 20 years, which has been to have not foreseen or prevented atomic weapons from being developed by America and Britain’s Islamist ally and client-state, Pakistan, and thence to have failed to prevent the proliferation of such weapons in general. The consequences of that may yet turn out to be the most grave.

After the Verdict: Why the Executive Needed a Vote of Confidence

AFTER THE VERDICT

by

Subroto Roy

First published The Statesman, 20 October 2005, Editorial Page Special Article

The last and only time a Head of State of India “resigned” was when Edward VIII (uncle of the present Queen of England) abdicated in 1936 because he wished to marry Mrs Wallis Simpson, a twice-divorced American, and the British Government under Stanley Baldwin felt this was unacceptable to the public and told him so. To his eternal credit, Edward VIII chose true love over the vainglorious trappings of a constitutional monarchy, gave up the kingship, and went with his new wife into a quiet voluntary life-exile in France as the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. India’s Presidents cannot act in state except upon advice of the Cabinet. That means they cannot even resign from office except upon advice of the Cabinet. A President may tragically die in office in which case the Vice-President would become the acting Head of State but there is no provision or precedent in India for a President to be made to resign except for Edward VIII’s abdication.

Richard Nixon resigned the office of the President of the United States in 1974 and more recently William Jefferson Clinton was brought under a lot of pressure to do so by the legislative impeachment proceedings against him. Nixon resigned (which made Gerald Ford President) because it had become impossible for him to stay in office having been proved to have lied to the people, and Clinton managed to stay on by the skin of his teeth for similar misdeeds. But the American system is different because the Head of State and Head of Government are united in the person of the President.

In our system, the Head of State embodies the sovereignty of India and does nothing more. Mountbatten as the first Governor-General imagined himself much more than that and caused damage to the subcontinent’s polity which has still to be repaired. But the first four Indian Heads of State, C. Rajagopalachari, Dr Rajendra Prasad, Dr S. Radhakrishnan, and Dr Zakir Hussain, were exemplary role-models. Unfortunately since their time the office of the President has suffered some of the shocks too that have been suffered by almost all our institutions. For example, retired Presidents really should vanish most gracefully into quietude to write their memoirs and help raise their grandchildren, yet we have had a former President say that an award received after retirement as President has been his most prized. It is not logically possible for such a thing to happen, since to become President of India is the ultimate honour for any citizen of our country. We elect someone among us to be a constitutional monarch for a period of five years and call that person President. Even if a former Indian President should receive the Nobel Peace Prize afterwards it would not mean his/her having embodied the sovereignty of our Republic was not the ultimate honour.

In our constitutional law, our Head of State cannot choose to resign any more than the sovereignty of India can be made to momentarily come to an end. If, to construct a hypothetical case, a President of India while in office became, heavens forbid, physically or mentally incapable of carrying out the duties of the office, the Government of India as represented by the Union Cabinet may well look to the Vice-President to fulfil the role of the Head of State temporarily but there would be no provision for the President to be made to demit office. The only precedent is that of Edward VIII where his personal love for Mrs Simpson compelled his abdication upon the advice of the Prime Minister.

Bringing ourselves back to Bihar, the Honourable Supreme Court’s finding of unconstitutionality is of grave import. On the positive side, what it indicates yet again is that India’s political institutions, no matter how battered and bloody they become by our self-inflicted wounds, still do work.

Furthermore, for the Honourable Court to have allowed the elections to go forward indicates how fine is the quality of our justice, for the Court has allowed the people of Bihar to speak again, and of course Mr Nitish Kumar and friends have been free to use at the hustings the Court’s finding in their favour. Certainly heads should roll and be seen to roll for all this. The Governor should have gone immediately but has not only not done so, he has let it be known that he was acting under orders himself. If so, the least that should happen is that the party-functionary responsible for this should be sacked.

For some press-commentators to demand that Sonia Gandhi should replace Dr Manmohan Singh reveals an appalling ignorance of constitutional norms; this is not a matter of a “High Command” replacing one acolyte by another as chief minister somewhere – if a Prime Minister resigns, so does the entire Cabinet he has appointed, and a new Government has to be sought to be formed. At the same time it is less than candid for the Leader of the Opposition to demand via the television cameras that the Prime Minister should resign, since the Opposition knows fully well that there is an institution called Parliament which can express its lack of confidence in a Government. And of course it also remains open for the Prime Minister himself to go to Parliament and seek to renew its confidence in his Government when the public confidence has thus come to be shaken.

In fact, the right course of action for the President is to summon the Prime Minister and say something like: “It would appear the Judicial Branch of the Government of India has found the Executive Branch to have breached the Constitution. Reference must now be made to the Legislative Branch, namely, to Parliament, to see if it still has confidence in the Executive. Please ask for a Vote of Confidence in the Lok Sabha as soon as possible.” Of course, Dr Manmohan Singh has been the first Prime Minister in Commonwealth history since Salisbury who has not been himself a member of the Lower House. Curzon had wished to be British prime minister after returning from India but was passed over in 1922 in favour of Baldwin in a decisive demonstration that a prime minister must be a member of the Lower House. That is why Alec Douglas-Home stopped being a member of the House of Lords in order to become British PM in 1963-64. India in the last thirty years has seen parliamentary traditions at the Union and State levels being ruinously weakened (or not even allowed to develop) being replaced all too frequently either by street-fighting or by discretionary bureaucratic decision-making by committee. The present moment is an opportunity for the rot to be stemmed. It may be too optimistic though to believe that it will be taken.

 

The Mitrokhin Archives II from an Indian Perspective: A Review Article

The Mitrokhin Archives II from an Indian Perspective: A Review Article

by Subroto Roy

First published in The Statesman, Oct. 11 2005, Perspective Page

Vasili Mitrokhin’s defection from the former Soviet Union to Britain in 1992 caused a treasure-trove to reach MI-6 and the CIA and FBI, because he exposed many dozens of Soviet agents and their plots and intrigues around the world. But this fact that his material greatly helped Anglo-American counter-intelligence does not per se make it a source of accurate evidence with which a historian’s history book can be created. Rather, what this monumental and extremely informative volume amounts to being is a vast documentation, from an Anglo-American perspective, of what MI-6 and its allies have agreed to make public about what they now know of Soviet foreign policy and KGB practices, and of how Russian diplomacy and the KGB’s successors might function in the future.

That this is not a detached and disinterested history of intelligence is revealed by the three chapters on the subcontinent which have been causing a stir in India for the wrong reasons.

Everyone in the 1970s and through the 1980s knew of the tight grip around New Delhi’s policy-making circles of top bureaucrats, academics, journalists etc who were blatantly and incorrigibly pro-Soviet, some being active communists or fellow- travellers. Some of those complaining today know fully well that a cardinal implicit reason the CPI(M) broke from its parent party had to do precisely with Moscow’s control of the CPI. Moreover, while it might have been newsworthy when the KGB honey-trapped a senior diplomat or a junior cipher clerk in the Indian Embassy now and then, there were also hundreds of public sector bureaucrats, military personnel, journalists, technology professors, writers, artists, dancers et al who were treated most hospitably by the Soviet state – getting freebies flying to Soviet cities, being greeted by singing Young Pioneers, touring L’Hermitage with Intourist, receiving dollar honoraria and splendid gifts, sitting in on “technical training”, even receiving bogus Soviet doctoral degrees to allow themselves to be called “Dr” etc. Purchasing influence in New Delhi or any other capital city has never been merely a crude matter of cash-filled suitcases sloshing around in the middle of the night. Much of what Mitrokhin’s material says about the KGB’s penetration of India should, candidly speaking, generate but a desultory yawn from us –although even this book seems not to know that Narasimha Rao’s infamous, catastrophically damaging remarks in August 1991, in favour of the abortive KGB coup led by Kryuchkov against Gorbachev and Yeltsin, had been prompted by a staunchly pro-Soviet retired Indian diplomat at his side long-associated with the CPI.

Yes there are many titbits in this book that may be of interest from an Indian perspective — such as that Sanjay Gandhi’s entourage contained both a Soviet and an American mole in it (where are they now?). But what may be far more interesting to us today is what can be deduced from what Mitrokhin is silent about. For example, India and the Soviets were close allies in 1971 when Kissinger had teamed up with Yahya Khan and Bhutto to send Nixon to China. It is well known our Army Chief, General Maneckshaw, had demanded and received from Indira Gandhi and Jagjivan Ram enough time to prepare to go to war, and when Maneckshaw finally did move to liberate Bangladesh in December, it surprised Yahya and the Americans. Were the Soviets also quite surprised? If so, it would mean that although the Indian establishment was as porous as a sieve with respect to arms’ deals etc, on a matter of paramount national interest, namely, the just war on our own against Yahya Khan and Tikka Khan’s brutality in East Pakistan condoned by Nixon and Kissinger, India had kept her secrets secure. If, as seems likely, Indira Gandhi and her overtly communistic advisers had kept India’s war plans from not leaking to the KGB between March and December 1971, we may not have been in fact too badly compromised despite the widespread “shallow” penetration that occurred through corruption all around in the bureaucracy, academic institutions, media, political parties, etc.

Mitrokhin’s material describes this kind of shallow corrupt penetration that everyone knew was (and still remains) part of the lobbying process in Delhi. But there is no evidence in the book that the KGB knew of General Maneckshaw’s military preparations or plan of action until the lights went out in a blackout in Delhi on the night of December 2 1971 — that at least is something of which Indians may be slightly proud today. The same goes for the Pokhran nuclear tests. It is well known the CIA was caught by surprise by Pokhran-II in 1998; was the KGB caught by surprise by Pokhran-I in 1974? Probably so. Equally, the book says the KGB had at one point cracked Pakistani codes; did the Soviets share this information with India? Almost certainly not. Our Government’s chummery with the Soviets during the Cold War probably stopped well short of complete incest.

Unfortunately, many questions of interest to India or other countries have simply not been asked in the book. The Soviets (and Harold Wilson) had seemed to broker the India-Pakistan ceasefire in 1965, and Lal Bahadur Shastri died the day after he signed the Tashkent Declaration. What is the inside KGB information on that?

We do not know from this book. What do Soviet archives say about communist influence through the 1940s in Jammu & Kashmir (upon some of the very names who became Indira Gandhi’s inner circle later in Delhi)? Or about the uncritical adoption in the 1950s of Sovietesque economic models by the Planning Commission (and the suppression of Milton Friedman’s November 1955 memorandum to the Government of India, as well as the tarnishing of BR Shenoy as a CIA agent)? The answers are not present in this book because these and analogous questions of interest to India or many other countries simply have not been asked. Mitrokhin’s material has been mined only from an Anglo-American point of view, and until it is thrown open completely to everyone, a detached and disinterested history of permanent and universal interest on the important matters it touches upon is not available.

Several factual and methodological problems result as a consequence, and these need to be identified for purposes of future progress in understanding. For example, the book speaks many times of the KGB having forged or fabricated documents around the world as a technique of spreading disinformation.

Doubtless this was standard operating procedure for intelligence agencies but it is left completely impossible for the average reader to come to any assessment whether a given document mentioned was genuine or forged.

Consider a case in Iran. The book states that in February 1958, the KGB “forged a letter from the American Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, to his ambassador in Tehran belittling the Shah’s ability and implying that the United States was plotting his overthrow. The Teheran residency circulated copies of the letter to influential Iranian parliamentarians and editors in the confident expectation that one would come to the attention of the Shah – which it duly did. According to the KGB files on the operation, the Shah was completely taken in by the fabricated Dulles letter and personally instructed that a copy be sent to the US embassy with a demand for an explanation. Though the embassy dismissed it as a forgery, the Teheran residency reported that its denials were disbelieved. Dulles’s supposedly slighting references to the Shah were said to be a frequent topic of whispered conversation among the Iranian elite.” (p. 171)

It is impossible for anyone who has not seen this document or other supporting evidence to come to any assessment of what actually happened here. Matters are made worse by a note that says the KGB “claimed improbably that the Americans blamed the forgery not on the KGB but the British, who were said to be jealous of the strength of US influence in Iran”.

Was the document genuine or was it forged and if so by whom? If forged, must we believe the KGB was so astute in 1958 in its knowledge of American idiom that it could achieve the tremendous deception of mimicking the greatest of Cold Warriors writing to his own ambassador, enough to fool the Shah of Iran who had been placed in power by the very same Americans? No one can really tell unless the documents are opened up completely.

Another example is of more topical interest, and also reveals that this book must be seen as a contribution to a continuing (if friendly and academic) battle between rival intelligence agencies. Yevgeny Primakov, the former KGB chief and reformist Prime Minister (and Soviet Ambassador to India) is quoted as saying about the American help to the Pakistan-based guerrillas against the Soviets in Afghanistan: “the idea of deploying the Stingers (shoulder-held ground-to- air-missiles) was supplied by Osama bin Laden, who had been cooperating closely with the CIA at the time.” (Russian Crossroads, Yale University Press, 2004.)

Professor Andrew denies this flatly: “There is no support in the Mitrokhin material (or any other reliable source) for the claim that the CIA funded bin Laden or any of the other Arab volunteers who came to support the mujahideen. Most were funded through charities and mosques in the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, and were frequently viewed with suspicion by the Afghan mujahideen.” (p. 579)

It is obvious why this question is important: if Primakov is right and Andrew is wrong the Americans must be acutely embarrassed in having been allies or supporters or financiers not long ago of the very same Bin Laden who has now become their most bitter enemy. The United States Government’s “9/11 Commission” in 2004 made a much weaker statement than Professor Andrew: “Saudi Arabia and the United States supplied billions of dollars worth of secret assistance to rebel groups in Afghanistan fighting the Soviet occupation. This assistance was funnelled through Pakistan: the Pakistani military intelligence (ISID) helped train the rebels and distribute the arms. But Bin Laden and his associates had their own sources of support and training and they received little or no assistance from the United States…. In his memoirs, (Bin Laden’s deputy) Ayman al Zawahiri contemptuously rejects the claim that the Arab mujahideen were financed (even `one penny’) or trained by the United States… CIA officials involved in aiding the Afghan resistance regarded Bin Laden and his `Arab Afghans’ as having been militarily insignificant in the war and recall having little to do with him.”

Bin Laden was a callow youth when he got to Afghanistan shortly after the Soviet invasion in December 1979. Yet his contributions of funds, military effort and religious zealotry made him emerge age 33-34 as the “Emir” of Al Qaeda by the time the Soviets were compelled to withdraw in 1989, having suffered 14,500 dead. The Americans then began to lose interest in the region and in their Pakistani clients, and it was in that atmosphere that Pakistan decided to declare its independence in the world with its clandestine nuclear programme (never having felt part of the nationalist movement which led to Indian independence in 1947). It was in the same period that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda grew to become implacable and formidable enemies of the West, which culminated in the 9/11 mass murders in 2001. The claim that while the CIA certainly supported “Afghan” jihadists, it did not support Arab or African ones like Bin Laden and his friends is highly implausible. The New Yorker and Washington Post reported in 1986 the CIA supplying and training Hekmatyar’s “Hizbe-Islami” in the use of Stinger missiles to bring down Soviet aircraft. It is impossible to imagine the admittedly myopic American policy at the time included checking passports of these trainee- beneficiaries, saying “OK, you’re an Afghan resistance fighter you get a Stinger, you’re an Arab/African terrorist-of-the-future-who-may-attack-New York, you don’t”. Professor Andrew quotes positively the work on Bhutto of Raza Anwar, the Pakistani socialist, but he may have been unaware of Anwar’s The Tragedy of Afghanistan (Verso, 1988) where the precise nature of the American, Chinese and Arab support for the thousands of guerrillas in the dozens of camps in Zia’s Pakistan is quite fully and objectively documented. Foreign jihadists in Jammu & Kashmir came to be known as “Afghans” because they were veterans of the Afghan conflicts, not because they were Afghan nationals. Unlike Britain’s MI-6, the United States Government’s 9/11 Commission has made no bones about the connection between Bin Laden and the Pakistani ISI whose intent has been to attack India: “Pakistan’s rulers found these multitudes of ardent young `Afghans’ a source of potential trouble at home but potentially useful abroad. Those who joined the Taliban movement, espousing a ruthless version of Islamic law, perhaps could bring order in chaotic Afghanistan and make it a cooperative ally. They thus might give Pakistan greater security on one of the several borders where Pakistani military officers hoped for what they called `strategic depth’ (…. Pakistan’s need for a friendly, pliable neighbour on the west due to its hostile relationship with India on the east.)… It is unlikely that Bin Laden could have returned to Afghanistan (in 1996) had Pakistan disapproved. The Pakistani military intelligence service probably had advance knowledge of his coming, and its officers may have facilitated his travel. During his entire time in Sudan, he had maintained guesthouses and training camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan. These were part of a larger network used by diverse organisations for recruiting and training fighters for Islamic insurgencies in such places as Tajikistan, Kashmir and Chechnya. Pakistani intelligence officers reportedly introduced Bin Laden to Taliban leaders in Kandahar, their main base of power, to aid his reassertion of control over camps near Khowst, out of an apparent hope that he would now expand the camps and make them available for training of Kashmiri militants.”

Regardless of the fondness of the very strong lobby of British apologists (led by a former British High Commissioner to Pakistan) for the ISI and Pakistani Army, no detached history of modern intelligence in our part of the world can be written which whitewashes the misdeeds of Pakistan’s generals over several decades. Aside from what The Mitrokihn Archive II signifies about our region, there is a great amount of invaluable material on other parts of the world too, from Chile and Peru to Cuba and Nicaragua, to South Africa and Egypt and Israel, to China and Korea and Japan.

Indeed the keenest pages have to do with the internecine tensions between communists, like Castro and Gorbachev, or Khrushchev and Mao Zedong, in which no Anglo-American interests were involved. We in India have had our share of academic apologists and fellow travellers for totalitarian communist China, but the roots of the Sino-Soviet split have never come to be aired in Indian discussion. Professor Andrew is a leading member of the vitally important Cold War International History Project at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington DC, whose website displays new and vitally important data from formerly communist countries (like Mongolia, Russia and East Germany) about how Chinese communists saw and felt about India, Pakistan, Tibet etc, which needs urgent attention from serious Indian observers. The Mitrokhin Archive II gives us a privileged glimpse of some of what happened: “The Sino-Soviet split in the early 1960s brought to an acrimonious end the deference from the PRC which Stalin had taken for granted. The first public attack on Moscow was made by Mao’s veteran security chief, Kang Sheng, whose ferocious purges during Mao’s Great Leap Forward were largely modelled on techniques he had learned in Moscow during the Great Terror. On the Soviet side, the ideological dispute with China was compounded by personal loathing for Mao – the `Great Helmsman’ – and a more general dislike of the Chinese population as a whole, Khrushchev `repeatedly’ told a Romanian delegation shortly before his overthrow in 1964 that `Mao Zedong is sick, crazy, that he should be taken to an asylum, etc.” An assessment of Chinese national character circulated to KGB residencies by the Centre twelve years later claimed that the Chinese were `noted for their spitefulness’. What most outraged both the Kremlin and the Centre was Beijing’s impudence in setting itself up as a rival capital of world Communism, attempting to seduce other Communist parties from their rightful allegiance to the Soviet Union. Moscow blamed the horrors of Pol Pot’s regime… on the takeover of the Cambodian Communist Party by `an anti-popular, pro-Beijing clique’.

If nothing else, The Mitrokhin Archives II provides an honest opportunity for India’s Left to come clean with their frank and non-ideological opinions about Soviet, Chinese and other communist histories, and hence to candidly gain self-knowledge. Will they take it? Are there any George Orwells out there?

Kolkata, October 5 2005

Margaret Thatcher’s Revolution: How it Happened and What it Meant

Margaret Thatcher’s Revolution: How it Happened and What it Meant, edited by Subroto Roy & John Clarke, London & New York: Continuum, 2005, 2006.

Transparency and Economic Policy-Making

Transparency and Economic Policy-Making

An address by Professor Subroto Roy to the Asia-Pacific Public Relations Conference, (panel on Transparency chaired by C. R. Irani) January 30 1998.

This talk is dedicated to the memory of my sister Suchandra Bhattacharjee (14.02.1943-10.01.1998).
1. I would like to talk about transparency and economic policy-making in our country. For something to be transparent is, in plain language, for it to be able to be openly seen through, for it to not to be opaque, obscure or muddy, for it to be clear to the naked eye or to the reasonable mind. A clear glass of water is a transparent glass of water. Similarly, an open and easily comprehensible set of economic policies is a transparent set of economic policies.

The philosopher Karl Popper wrote a famous book after the Second World War titled The Open Society and its Enemies. It contained a passionate defence of liberal institutions and democratic freedoms and a bitter attack on totalitarian doctrines of all kinds. It generated a lot of controversy, especially over its likely misreading of the best known work of political philosophy since the 4th Century BC, namely, Plato’s Republic .[1] I shall borrow Popper’s terms ‘open society’ and ‘closed society’ and will first try to make this a useful distinction for modern times, and then apply it to the process of economic policy-making in India today.

2. An open society is one in which the ordinary citizen has reasonably easy access to any and all information relating to the public or social interest — whether the information is directly available to the citizen himself or herself, or is indirectly available to his or her elected representatives like MP’s and MLA’s. Different citizens will respond to the same factual information in different ways, and conflict and debate about the common good will result. But that would be part of the democratic process.

The assessment that any public makes about the government of the day depends on both good and bad news about the fate of the country at any given time. In an open society, both good news and bad news is out there in the pubic domain — open to be assessed, debated, rejoiced over, or wept about. If we win a cricket match or send a woman into space we rejoice. If we lose a child in a manhole or a busload of children in a river, we weep. If some tremendous fraud on the public exchequer comes to be exposed, we are appalled. And so on.

It is the hallmark of an open society that its citizens are mature enough to cope with both the good and the bad news about their country that comes to be daily placed before them. Or, perhaps more accurately, the experience of having to handle both good and bad news daily about their world causes the citizens in an open society to undergo a process of social maturation in formulating their understanding of the common good as well as their responses to problems or crises that the community may come to face. They might be thereby thought of as improving their civic capacities, as becoming better-informed and more discerning voters and decision-makers, and so becoming better citizens of the country in which they live.

The opposite of an open society is a closed society — one in which a ruling political party or a self-styled elite or nomenclatura keep publicly important information to themselves, and do not allow the ordinary citizen easy or reasonably free access to it. The reason may be merely that they are intent on accumulating assets for themselves as quickly as they can while in office, or that they are afraid of public anger and want to save their own skins from demands for accountability. Or it may be that they have the impression that the public is better off kept in the dark — that only the elite nomenclatura is in position to use the information to serve the national interest.

In a closed society it is inevitable that bad news comes to be censored or suppressed by the nomenclatura, and so the good news gets exaggerated in significance. News of economic disasters, military defeats or domestic uprisings gets suppressed. News of victories or achievements or heroics gets exaggerated. If there are no real victories, achievements or heroics, fake ones have to be invented by government hacks — although the suppressed bad news tends to silently whisper all the way through the public consciousness in any case.

Such is the way of government propaganda in almost every country, even those that pride themselves on being free and democratic societies. Dostoevsky’s cardinal advice in Brothers Karamasov was: “Above all, never lie to yourself”. Yet people in power tend to become so adept at propaganda that they start to deceive themselves and forget what is true and what is false, or worse still, cannot remember how to distinguish between true and false in the first place. In an essay thirty years ago titled Truth and Politics, the American scholar Hannah Arendt put it like this:

“Insofar as man carries within himself a partner from whom he can never win release, he will be better off not to live with a murderer or a liar; or: since thought is the silent dialogue carried out between me and myself, I must be careful to keep the integrity of this partner intact, for otherwise I shall surely lose the capacity for thought altogether.”[2]

3. Closed societies may have been the rule and open societies the exception for most of human history. The good news at the end of the 20th Century is surely that since November 7 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell, the closed society has officially ceased to be a respectable form of human social organization. The age of mass access to television and telecommunications at the end of the 20th Century may be spelling the permanent end of totalitarianism and closed societies in general. The Berlin Wall was perhaps doomed to fall the first day East Germans were able to watch West German television programs.

Other than our large and powerful neighbour China, plus perhaps North Korea, Myanmar, and some Islamic countries, declared closed societies are becoming hard to find, and China remains in two minds whether to be open or closed. No longer is Russia or Romania or Albania or South Africa closed in the way each once was for many years. There may be all sorts of problems and confusions in these countries but they are or trying to become open societies.

Under the glare of TV cameras in the 21st Century, horrors like the Holocaust or the Gulag or even an atrocity like Jalianwalla Bag or the Mai Lai massacre will simply not be able to take place anywhere in the world. Such things are not going to happen, or if they do happen, it will be random terrorism and not systematic, large scale genocide of the sort the 20th Century has experienced. The good news is that somehow, through the growth of human ingenuity that we call technical progress, we may have made some moral progress as a species as well.

4. My hypothesis, then, is that while every country finds its place on a spectrum of openness and closedness with respect to its political institutions and availability of information, a broad and permanent drift has been taking place as the 20th Century comes to an end in the direction of openness.

With this greater openness we should expect bad news not to come to be suppressed or good news not to come to be exaggerated in the old ways of propaganda. Instead we should expect more objectively accurate information to come about in the public domain — i.e., better quality and more reliable information, in other words, more truthful information. This in turn commensurately requires more candour and maturity on the part of citizens in discussions about the national or social interest. Closed society totalitarianism permitted the general masses to remain docile and unthinking while the nomenclatura make the decisions. Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor said that is all that can be expected of the masses. Open society transparency and democracy defines the concept of an ordinary citizen and requires from that citizen individual rationality and individual responsibility. It is the requirement Pericles made of the Athenians:

“Here each individual is interested not only in his own affairs but in the affairs of the state as well; even those who are mostly occupied with their own business are extremely well-informed on general politics – this is a peculiarity of ours: we do not say that a man who takes no interest in politics is a man who minds his own business; we say that he has no business here at all.”[3]

5. All this being said, I am at last in a position to turn to economic policy in India today. I am sorry to have been so long-winded and pedantic but now I can state my main substantive point bluntly: in India today, there is almost zero transparency in the information needed for effective macroeconomic policy-making whether at the Union or State levels. To illustrate by some examples.

(A) Macroeconomic policy-making in any large country requires the presence of half a dozen or a dozen well-defined competing models produced by the government and private agencies, specifying plausible causal links between major economic variables, and made testable against time-series data of reasonably long duration. In India we seem to have almost none. The University Economics Departments are all owned by some government or other and can hardly speak out with any academic freedom. When the Ministry of Finance or RBI or Planning Commission, or the India teams of the World Bank or IMF, make their periodic statements they do not appear to be based on any such models or any such data-base. If any such models exist, these need to be published and placed in the public domain for thorough discussion as to their specification and their data. Otherwise, whatever is being predicted cannot be assessed as being very much more reliable than the predictions obtained from the Finance Minister’s astrologer or palmist. (NB: Horse-Manure is a polite word used in the American South for what elsewhere goes by the initials of B. S.). Furthermore, there is no follow-up or critical review to see whether what the Government said was going to happen a year ago has in fact happened, and if not, why not.

(B) The Constitution of India defines many States yet no one seems to be quite certain how many States really constitute the Union of India at any given time. We began with a dozen. Some 565 petty monarchs were successfully integrated into a unitary Republic of India, and for some years we had sixteen States. But today, do we really have 26 States? Is Delhi a State? UP with 150 million people would be the fifth or sixth largest country in the world on its own; is it really merely one State of India? Are 11 Small States de facto Union Territories in view of their heavy dependence on the Union? Suppose we agreed there are fifteen Major States of India based on sheer population size: namely, Andhra, Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Karnataka, Kerala, MP, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, UP and West Bengal. These States account for 93% of the population of India. The average population of these 15 Major States is 58 million people each. That is the size of a major country like France or Britain. In other words, the 870 million people in India’s Major States are numerically 15 Frances or 15 Britains put together.

Yet no reliable, uniformly collected GDP figures exist for these 15 States. The RBI has the best data, and these are at least two years old, and the RBI will tell you without further explanation that the data across States are not comparable. If that is the case at State-level, I do not see how the national-level Gross Domestic Product can possibly be estimated with any meaningfulness at all.

(C) Then we hear about the Government Budget deficit as a percentage of GDP. Now any national government is able to pay for its activities only by taxation or borrowing or by using its monopoly over the domestic medium of exchange to print new money. In India today, universal money-illusion seems to prevail. It would not be widely recognised by citizens, journalists or policy-makers that, say, 100,000 Rupees nominally taxed at 10% under 20% inflation leaves less real disposable income than the same taxed at 20% with 5% inflation. This is in part because inflation figures are unknown or suspect. There is no reliable all-India or State-level consumer price index. The wholesale price index on the basis of which the Government of India makes its inflation statements, may not accurately reflect the actual decline in the purchasing power of money, as measured, say, by rises in prices of alternative stores of value like land. The index includes artificially low administered or subsidized prices for petroleum, cereals, and electricity. To the extent these prices may be expected to move towards international equilibrium prices, the index contains a strong element of deferred inflation. One urgent task for all macroeconomic research in India is construction of reliable price-data indices at both Union and State levels, or at a minimum, the testing for reliability by international standards of series currently produced by Government agencies.

Without reliable macroeconomic information being spread widely through a reasonably well-informed electorate, the Government of India has been able to wash away fiscal budget constraints by monetization and inflation without significant response from voters. The routine method of meeting deficits has become “the use of the printing press to manufacture legal tender paper money”, either directly by paying Government creditors “with new paper money specially printed for the purpose” or indirectly by paying creditors “out of loans to itself from the Central Bank”, issuing paper money to that amount. Every Budget of the Government of India, including the most recent ones of 1996 and 1997, comes to be attended by detailed Press discussion with regard to the minutae of changes in tax rates or tax-collection — yet the enormous phenomena of the automatic monetization of the Government’s deficit is ill-understood and effectively ignored. Historically, a policy of monetization started with the British Government in India during the Second World War, with a more than five-fold increase in money supply occurring between 1939 and 1945. Inflation rates never seen in India before or since were the result (Charts 0000), attended by the Great Famine of 1942/43. Though these were brought down after succession of C. D. Deshmukh as Governor of the Reserve Bank, the policy of automatic monetization did not cease and continues until the present day. Inflation “sooner or later destroys the confidence, not only of businessmen, but of the whole community, in the future value of the currency. Then comes the stage known as “the flight from the currency.” Had the Rupee been convertible during the Bretton Woods period, depreciation would have signalled and helped to adjust for disequilibrium. But exchange-controls imposed during the War were enlarged by the new Governments of India and Pakistan after the British departure to exclude convertible Sterling Area currencies as well. With the Rupee no longer convertible, internal monetization of deficits could continue without commensurate exchange-rate depreciation.

The Reserve Bank was originally supposed to be a monetary authority independent of the Government’s fiscal compulsions. It has been prevented from developing into anything more than a department of the Ministry of Finance, and as such, has become the captive creditor of the Government. The RBI in turn has utilized its supervisory role over banking to hold captive creditors, especially nationalized banks whose liabilities account for 90% of commercial bank deposits in the country. Also captive are nationalized insurance companies and pension funds. Government debt instruments show on the asset side of these balance-sheets. To the extent these may not have been held had banks been allowed to act in the interests of proper management of depositors’ liabilities and share-capital according to normal principles, these are pseudo-assets worth small fractions of their nominal values. Chart 0000 shows that in the last five years the average term structure of Government debt has been shortening rapidly, suggesting the Government is finding it increasingly difficult to find creditors, and portending higher interest rates.

General recognition of these business facts, as may be expected to come about with increasing transparency, would be a recipe for a crisis of confidence in the banking and financial system if appropriate policies were not in place beforehand.

(D) As two last examples, I offer two charts. The first shows the domestic interest burden of the Government of India growing at an alarming rate, even after it has been deflated to real terms. The second tries to show India’s foreign assets and liabilities together – we always come to know what is happening to the RBI’s reserve levels, what is less known or less understood is the structure of foreign liabilities being accumulated by the country. Very roughly speaking, in terms that everyone can understand, every man, woman and child in India today owes something like 100 US dollars to the outside world. The Ministry of Finance will tell you that this is not to be worried about because it is long-term debt and not short-term debt. Even if we take them at their word, interest payments still have to be paid on long-term debt, say at 3% per annum. That means for the stock of debt merely to be financed, every man, woman and child in India must be earning $3 every year in foreign exchange via the sale of real goods and services abroad. I.e., something like $3 billion must be newly earned every year in foreign exchange merely to finance the existing stock of debt. Quite clearly, that is not happening and it would stretch the imagination to see how it can be made to happen.

In sum, then, India, blessed with democratic political traditions which we had to take from the British against their will — remember Tilak, “Freedom is my birthright, and I shall have it” — may still be stuck with a closed society mentality when it comes to the all-important issue of economic policy. There is simply an absence in Indian public discourse of vigourous discussion of economic models and facts, whether at Union or State levels. A friendly foreign ambassador pointedly observed an absence in India of political philosophy. It may be more accurate to say that without adequate experience of a normal agenda of government being seen to be practised, widespread ignorance regarding fiscal and monetary causalities and inexperience of the technology of governance remains in the Indian electorate, as well as among public decision-makers at all levels. Our politicians seem to spend an inordinate amount of their time either garlanding one another with flowers or garlanding statues and photographs of the glorious dead. It is high time they stopped to think about the living and the future.

[1] Renford Bambrough (ed.) Plato, Popper and Politics: Some Contributions to a Modern Controversy, 1967.

[2] Philosophy, Politics and Society, 2nd Series, Peter Laslett & W. G. Runciman (eds.), 1967.

[3] Thucydides, History of the Pelopennesian War, II.40.

My March 25 1991 memo to Rajiv (which never reached him) is something the present Government (2009) seems to have followed: all for the best of course!

The first time I met Rajiv Gandhi was on September 18 1990 and the last was on March 23 1991.    The full story of that encounter has been told here and in print. I had been asked to stay on in Delhi for a few days for a possible follow-up meeting in case questions needed to be addressed but in the rather confused circumstances at the time during an election campaign, that never happened.

Before leaving Delhi, I gave the fellow-advisers in my group the following document  authored by myself dated March 25 1991.   The group’s last meeting with Rajiv was on March 23 1991 as has been told elsewhere.   It had first met on September 25 1990 following my September 18 1990 meeting with Rajiv — so, in a sense, I was its first member.

Yet, unfortunately, in November 2007, one member of the group, who today apparently remains close to political power in New Delhi, chose to be publicly mendacious about  all this  — alleging Manmohan Singh (who himself has never made such a a claim) was part of the group while erasing, in the best traditions of Stalinist totalitarianism, my name and work in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to write a false history.   I was compelled to expose this mendacity,  an exposure that can be found elsewhere here.

Even so, I am glad to see the Congress Party still may have learnt from what I said because there are identifiable similarities between what they have done at the start of the second Sonia-Manmohan Government a few weeks ago, and what I had said in the March 25 1991 memo which, though it did not reach Rajiv, may have remained in some recipient’s files.  Of course, if so, it is possible the mendacious have been taking undue political credit for its content:  Aristotle said the virtues tend to be found together, and so too the vices  — those who are mendacious are also likely to be, to make the point  euphemistically, disrespectful of the property rights of others in favour of themselves (or, to put it bluntly, thieving).

As I have said elsewhere,  Rajiv himself had said at our last  March 23 meeting he wished to meet me alone and would be arranging it but that was not to be.  Nor, to repeat, did he get to see this document, which I have today found again in my files and is published below unaltered.

Subroto Roy July 12 2009

“ON THE ART OF GOVERNMENT: EXPERTS, PARTY, CABINET & BUREAUCRACY

There are today (March 25 1991) less than 60 days to what we should assume will be a Congress victory. When Congress is returned to power, it should be ready from Day One to start implementing the policies in its manifesto. The initial momentum of victory should not be allowed to diminish into complacency at any point during the entire life of the Government. The strategic mistake of the 1984-89 Government must be avoided. This was to get euphoric, think that everything could be done quickly, lose momentum when realities catch up, then becoming vulnerable to an attack like Bofors which brings everything else down. We have to keep continuous control of the public agenda, and not let it slip into the hands of the Press or the Opposition for any significant amount of time.

Cycle of Political Action

Policy-making and implementation should be a continuous cyclical process institutionalized throughout the life of the Government: – the Party leadership should elicit political and expert advice and make recommendations to the Council of Ministers; – the Council of Ministers should instruct the Bureaucracy to prepare legislation accordingly for Parliament; – the Council of Ministers should monitor implementation of successful legislation via correct data and intelligence, and report back to the Party leadership; – the Party leadership should assess the political impact of the legislation, and re-advise the Council of Ministers accordingly. The ultimate goal is to enable the Party leadership to call and win the next Lok Sabha election within the next 60 months. That is the sole practical criterion of success. All short-term and medium-term plans and actions of the Party and Ministers have to dovetail one into the other from Day One for the achievement of this ultimate goal.

Preparing Ministers for the Job

Precious time can be lost preparing names of the Council of Ministers over days or weeks of speculation in the press and rivalry in the Party. A general pool from which the Council of Ministers is likely to be selected must be ready well before the victory at the polls is announced. The Council of Ministers should be named definitively within 24-48 hours of the Congress being asked to form the next Government. This will be the first signal to the world of the restoration of a strong, clear-headed Government of India. This will be celebration enough of the Congress’s victory. There is too much work to be done for there to be any tamasha. The Party leadership should formulate from now an initial 90-day plan to be put into action from Day One. This plan should be ready a week before Day One at the latest. The goal should be that when each Minister turns up at his/her Ministry for the first time, he/she must already know or have been advised or instructed by the Party leadership (a) what the specific job is in that Ministry in the next 90 days (b) where the Party leadership want that Minister to take that Ministry; (c) the specific steps the Minister must take within the first few days; (d) the general reforms which the Party leadership expects to see from that Ministry within 90 days. The Minister must be prepared to take charge from Day One of the superb, senior bureaucrats waiting to welcome him/her at the Ministry. If a Minister is not capable of taking charge of his/her bureaucrats then the latter will be forced to take charge of him/her. The Minister will never regain the momentum. Expert advice will reach such a Minister, if at all, only through bureaucrats rather than through the political process. The Party can almost write off the policies entrusted to such a Minister, there will be weak political monitoring of success, and alienation and disaffection in the Party as it feels sidelined by the Bureaucracy. The democratic mandate would have been stymied by lack of proper ministerial leadership. India’s senior bureaucracy is the best in the world without exception. The Congress Party, for all its faults, is one of the great political parties of the world. One of the arts of Indian Government today is to find the way to use all the talents of the bureaucracy and to win the political elections by maintaining Party morale, involvement and feedback.

Prime Minister and his Council of Ministers

It may be assumed as a fact that Rajiv Gandhi will face no challenge to his leadership from within his own Council of Ministers. Therefore, he can be confident in his leadership by both encouraging individual ministerial competence and monitoring their individual performance. He would be well-advised to explain at the outset to the Council of Ministers their common goals over the entire period of the expected life of the Government, and the planned method of achieving these goals. As basic rules of thumb, he would be well-advised to indicate boldly to his Council at the outset – that no Minister would face sudden dismissal or demotion during the life of the Government; – that such-and-such are the standards of ministerial performance he expects; – that the Prime Minister feels himself primus inter pares or first among equals, and chooses to lead them only so long as he has their collective confidence; – that every Minister has free access to him whenever the purpose is to enable Government to implement its mandate; – that he encourages free and open discussion within the Council; – that teamwork demands total confidentiality of these discussions, and total loyalty to the mandate of the Government for the entire life of the Government; – that he would accept without penalty the resignation of any Minister unable to abide by such principles or the decisions of the Council. These principles would set out some of the rules of the game of cabinet government in a clear fashion. One of the arts of Indian Government today is to find the way to let individual ministers grow and develop at their jobs without either feeling so intimidated by the Prime Minister as to be paralysed by fear, or feeling so ambitious that they want the Prime Minister’s job for themselves. If a Minister wants the Prime Minister’s job, he/she can ask for it in a proper Party forum at an appropriate time — not while they are part of this Prime Minister’s Council of Ministers. The responsible procedure for the Minister who is in total disagreement with his/her Prime Minister is to resign quietly without fanfare or publicity. If he/she wants to criticise the Government he/she should have the opportunity to do so at a closed Party forum — not in the Press or to benefit the Opposition. The Prime Minister can even state such a policy to his Council of the manner in which he expects disagreement with him can be responsibly expressed. The spectre of extreme irresponsible Cabinet behaviour of V. P. Singh and friends in the 1987-1989 period should always be before our mind. If such a model of cabinet government is considered the right one for the Centre then guidelines of this sort should go from the Party Working Committee to all appropriate Congress Committees in the States.

The Party, the Bureaucracy and Expert Advice

As a general rule, recommendations for political action should come to the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers from the Party not from the Bureaucracy. Our bureaucracy unlike others in the world is of very high quality. But like others it is inherently conservative, slow and status-quo-preserving. The Party on the other hand is or should be made to be inherently radical, fast-moving and status-quo reforming. Expert advice should generally enter the process at two different stages. First the Party should, in view of its political interests, solicit good quality expert advice from a wide spectrum of scholars, journalists, observers, public figures and the man on the street. On this basis it should make its recommendations for reform of the status-quo as radically as possible to the Government. The Government should then solicit a second round of expert advice via the Bureaucracy. This will be expected to be conservative and resisting change, partly due to normal aversion to risk and partly due to protect vested interests. In general, conservatives in this context are those whose interests are negatively affected by a change in a positive direction for the country as a whole, while radicals in this context are those desiring to bring about such change. If a radical proposal is accepted prematurely without proper preparation of expectations or formulation of a feasible deal, then it will fail due to conservative opposition and momentum will be lost. If conservative opposition stymies every proposal, there will be no change and the objective of winning the next election will fail to be achieved. One of the arts of Indian Government today is to find the right middle ground between radical proposals of change and expected conservative resistance. In this connection, part of the Party’s plan of action for Day One should be to prepare its opinions from now about the names and availability of possible expert personnel on various subjects, and the sources of correct intelligence and key data indicators for purposes of monitoring implementation.

New Delhi March 25 1991″.

Rajiv Gandhi and the Origins of India’s 1991 Economic Reform

Rajiv Gandhi and the Origins of India’s 1991 Economic Reform

Subroto Roy

Author’s Note May 2008: The family of Rajiv Gandhi received a copy of this when it was first written in July 2005. An earlier abbreviated version “Encounter with Rajiv Gandhi: On the Origins of India’s 1991 Economic Reform” was published in October 2001 in Freedom First, Bombay, a journal founded by the late Minoo Masani and now edited by S V Raju. A copy of that article was received by all Congress MPs of the 13th Lok Sabha. In May 2002, the Congress Party passed an official resolution stating Rajiv Gandhi and not Narasimha Rao or Manmohan Singh was to be credited with having originated the 1991 economic reforms. This article has now been published in print in The Statesman Festival Volume, October 2007.  It may be profitably followed by “The Dream Team: A Critique”, “Solving Kashmir”, “Law, Justice & J&K”, “What to tell Musharraf”, “India’s Macroeconomics”, “Fiscal Instability”, “India’s Trade and Payments”, “Fallacious Finance”, “Against Quackery”, etc. My original advisory memoranda to Rajiv in 1990-1991 were published in The Statesman’s Editorial Pages July 31-August 2 1991, and now have been republished elsewhere here as well. See too https://independentindian.com/thoughts-words-deeds-my-work-1973-2010/rajiv-gandhi-and-the-origins-of-indias-1991-economic-reform/did-jagdish-bhagwati-originate-pioneer-intellectually-father-indias-1991-economic-reform-did-manmohan-singh-or-did-i-through-my-e/  https://independentindian.com/2014/08/07/haksar-manmohan-and-sonia/

I met Rajiv Gandhi for the first time on 18th September 1990 thanks to an introduction by S. S. Ray (see “I’m on my way out”: Siddhartha Shankar Ray (1920-2010)… | Independent Indian: Work & Life of Professor Subroto Roy) We met a half dozen or so times until his assassination in May 1991. Yet our encounter was intense and consequential, and resulted directly in the change of the Congress Party’s economic thinking prior to the 1991 elections. I had with me results of an interdisciplinary “perestroika-for-India” project I had led at the University of Hawaii since 1986. This manuscript (later published by Sage as Foundations of India’s Political Economy: Towards an Agenda for the 1990s edited by myself and W. E. James) was given by me to Rajiv, then Leader of the Opposition, and was instrumental in the change of thinking that took place. In interests of fairness, I tried to get the work to V. P. Singh too because he was Prime Minister, but a key aide of his showed no interest in receiving it.

The Hawaii project manuscript contained inter alia a memorandum by Milton Friedman done at the request of the Government of India in November 1955, which had been suppressed for 34 years until I published it in May 1989. Milton and Rose Friedman refer to this in their memoirs Two Lucky People (Chicago 1998). Peter Bauer had told me of the existence of Friedman’s document during my doctoral work at Cambridge under Frank Hahn in the late 1970s, as did N. Georgescu-Roegen in America. Those were years in which Brezhnev still ruled in the Kremlin, Gorbachev was yet to emerge, Indira Gandhi and her pro-Moscow advisers were ensconced in New Delhi, and not even the CIA had imagined the Berlin Wall would fall and the Cold War would be over within a decade. It was academic suicide at the time to argue in favour of classical liberal economics even in the West. As a 22-year-old Visiting Assistant Professor at the Delhi School of Economics in 1977, I was greeted with uproarious laughter of senior professors when I spoke of a possible free market in foreign exchange. Cambridge was a place where Indian economists went to study the exploitation of peasants in Indian agriculture before returning to their friends in the well-known bastions of such matters in Delhi and Calcutta. It was not a place where Indian (let alone Bengali) doctoral students in economics mentioned the unmentionable names of Hayek or Friedman or Buchanan, and insisted upon giving their works a hearing.

My original doctoral topic in 1976 “A monetary theory for India” had to be altered not only due to paucity of monetary data at the time but because the problems of India’s political economy and allocation of resources in the real economy were far more pressing. The thesis that emerged in 1982 “On liberty and economic growth: preface to a philosophy for India” was a full frontal assault from the point of view of microeconomic theory on the “development planning” to which everyone routinely declared their fidelity, from New Delhi’s bureaucrats and Oxford’s “development” school to McNamara’s World Bank with its Indian staffers.

Frank Hahn protected my inchoate liberal arguments for India; and when no internal examiner could be found, Cambridge showed its greatness by appointing two externals, Bliss at Oxford and Hutchison at Birmingham, both Cambridge men. “Economic Theory and Development Economics” was presented to the American Economic Association in December 1982 in company of Solow, Chenery and other eminences, and then Pricing, Planning and Politics: A Study of Economic Distortions in India published by London’s Institute of Economic Affairs, provoking the lead editorial of The Times on May 29 1984. The Indian High Commission sent the editorial to the Finance Ministry where it caused a stir as the first classical liberal attack on post-Mahalonobis Indian economic thought since B. R. Shenoy’s original criticism decades earlier. The “perestroika-for-India” project was to follow at Hawaii starting in 1986. New Delhi was represented at the project’s conference held between May 22-27 1989 by the accredited Ambassador of India to the USA, the accredited Consul General of India to San Francisco, and by the founder-director of ICRIER (see photo).

friedman-et-al-at-uh-india-conf-19891

All this I brought into that first meeting with Rajiv Gandhi on September 18 1990. That first day he came to the door to greet me. He was a handsome tall man with the most charming smile and manner, seemed pleased to see me and put me at ease at once. I gave him my books as well as the manuscript of the “perestroika for India” project. He gave me a celebratory volume that had just been published to mark his grandfather’s centenary. He began by talking about how important he felt panchayati raj was, and said he had been on the verge of passing major legislation on it but then lost the election. He asked me if I could spend some time thinking about it, and that he would get the papers sent to me. I said I would and remarked panchayati raj might be seen as decentralized provision of public goods, and gave the economist’s definition of public goods as those essential for the functioning of the market economy, like the Rule of Law, roads, fresh water, and sanitation, but which were unlikely to appear through competitive forces.

I distinguished between federal, state and local levels and said many of the most significant public goods were best provided locally. Rajiv had not heard the term “public goods” before, and he beamed a smile and his eyes lit up as he voiced the words slowly, seeming to like the concept immensely. It occurred to me he had been by choice a pilot of commercial aircraft. Now he seemed intrigued to find there could be systematic ways of thinking about navigating a country’s governance by common pursuit of reasonable judgement. I said the public sector’s wastefulness had drained scarce resources that should have gone instead to provide public goods. Since the public sector was owned by the public, it could be privatised by giving away its shares to the public, preferably to panchayats of the poorest villages. The shares would become tradable, drawing out black money, and inducing a historic redistribution of wealth while at the same time achieving greater efficiency by transferring the public sector to private hands. Rajiv seemed to like that idea too, and said he tried to follow a maxim of Indira Gandhi’s that every policy should be seen in terms of how it affected the common man. I wryly said the common man often spent away his money on alcohol, to which he said at once it might be better to think of the common woman instead. (This remark of Rajiv’s may have influenced the “aam admi” slogan of the 2004 election, as all Congress Lok Sabha MPs of the previous Parliament came to receive a previous version of the present narrative.)

Our project had identified the Congress’s lack of internal elections as a problem; when I raised it, Rajiv spoke of how he, as Congress President, had been trying to tackle the issue of bogus electoral rolls. I said the judiciary seemed to be in a mess due to the backlog of cases; many of which seemed related to land or rent control, and it may be risky to move towards a free economy without a properly functioning judicial system or at least a viable system of contractual enforcement. I said a lot of problems which should be handled by the law in the courts in India were instead getting politicised and decided on the streets. Rajiv had seen the problems of the judiciary and said he had good relations with the Chief Justice’s office, which could be put to use to improve the working of the judiciary.

The project had worked on Pakistan as well, and I went on to say we should solve the problem with Pakistan in a definitive manner. Rajiv spoke of how close his government had been in 1988 to a mutual withdrawal from Siachen. But Zia-ul-Haq was then killed and it became more difficult to implement the same thing with Benazir Bhutto, because, he said, as a democrat, she was playing to anti-Indian sentiments while he had found it somewhat easier to deal with the military. I pressed him on the long-term future relationship between the countries and he agreed a common market was the only real long-term solution. I wondered if he could find himself in a position to make a bold move like offering to go to Pakistan and addressing their Parliament to break the impasse. He did not say anything but seemed to think about the idea. Rajiv mentioned a recent Time magazine cover of Indian naval potential, which had caused an excessive stir in Delhi. He then talked about his visit to China, which seemed to him an important step towards normalization. He said he had not seen (or been shown) any absolute poverty in China of the sort we have in India. He talked about the Gulf situation, saying he did not disagree with the embargo of Iraq except he wished the ships enforcing the embargo had been under the U.N. flag. The meeting seemed to go on and on, and I was embarrassed at perhaps having taken too much time and that he was being too polite to get me to go. V. George had interrupted with news that Sheila Dixit (as I recall) had just been arrested by the U. P. Government, and there were evidently people waiting. Just before we finally stood up I expressed a hope that he was looking to the future of India with an eye to a modern political and economic agenda for the next election, rather than getting bogged down with domestic political events of the moment. That was the kind of hopefulness that had attracted many of my generation in 1985. I said I would happily work in any way to help define a long-term agenda. His eyes lit up and as we shook hands to say goodbye, he said he would be in touch with me again.

The next day I was called and asked to stay in Delhi for a few days, as Mr. Gandhi wanted me to meet some people. I was not told whom I was to meet but that there would be a meeting on Monday, 24th September. On Saturday, the Monday meeting was postponed to Tuesday because one of the persons had not been able to get a flight into Delhi. I pressed to know what was going on, and was told I was to meet former army chief K.V. Krishna Rao, former foreign secretary M. K. Rasgotra, V. Krishnamurty and Sam Pitroda.

The group met for the first time on September 25 in the afternoon. Rasgotra did not arrive. Krishna Rao, Pitroda, Krishnamurty and I gathered in the waiting room next to George’s office. The three of them knew each other but none knew me and I was happy enough to be ignored. It seemed mysterious while we were gathering, especially when the tall well-dressed General arrived, since none of us knew why we had been called by Rajiv, and the General remarked to the others he had responded at once to the call to his home but could not get a flight into Delhi for a day.

Rajiv’s residence as Leader of the Opposition had a vast splendid meeting room, lined with high bookshelves on one or two walls, a large handsome desk on one side, two spacious comfortable sofa sets arranged in squares, and a long conference table with leather chairs occupying most of the rest of the room. The entrance to it was via a small 10 ft by 10 ft air-conditioned anteroom, where George sat, with a fax machine, typewriters and a shredding machine, plus several telephones, and a used copy of parliamentary procedures on the shelf. Getting to George’s office was the final step before reaching Rajiv. There were several chairs facing George, and almost every prospective interviewee, no matter how senior or self-important, had to move from one chair to the next, while making small talk with George, as the appointment with Rajiv drew near. Opening into George’s office was a larger and shabbier waiting room, which is where we sat, which was not air-conditioned, and which opened to the outside of the building where a plainclothes policeman sometimes stood around with a walkie-talkie. There were large photographs of Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru and Indira Gandhi on the wall, and a modern print also hung incongruously. A dozen or more plastic chairs lined the walls. There were faded torn issues of a few old magazines on the plastic coffee-table, and on one occasion there was a television playing the new sporadic domestic cable news and weather information for the entertainment of the many visitors waiting. Via this waiting room went the vast majority of people who were to meet Rajiv in his office. To reach the waiting room, one had to walk a hundred yards along a path lined by splendid high hedges from the initial reception desk at the rear-gate, manned by Congress Seva Dal volunteers in khadi wearing Gandhi-caps. These persons were in touch with George’s office by telephone, and would check with George or his assistant Balasubramaniam before sending a visitor along. The visitor would then pass through a metal-detector manned by a couple of policemen. If someone’s face came to be known and had been cleared once, or if someone acted to the policemen like a sufficiently important political personage, such a person seemed to be waved through. Outside, the front-entrance of the premises were closed unless extremely important people were entering or exiting, while at the rear-entrance there were usually two or three jeeps and several plainclothes policemen, who might or might not challenge the prospective visitor with a kind of “Who goes there?” attitude before the visitor reached the Seva Dal reception desk. The whole arrangement struck me from the first as insecure and inefficient, open to penetration by professional assassins or a terrorist squad, let aside insiders in the way Indira Gandhi had been assassinated. I could not imagine counter-terrorist commandos would suddenly appear from the high hedges in the event of an emergency.

On that Tuesday when Rajiv finally called in our group, we entered hesitantly not knowing quite what the meeting was going to be about. Rajiv introduced me to the others and then spoke of why he had gathered us together. He wanted us to come up with proposals and recommendations for the direction the country should take on an assumption the Congress Party was returned to power in the near future. He said it would help him to have an outside view from specialists who were not party functionaries, though the others obviously had been closely involved with Congress governments before. Rajiv said we were being asked to write a draft of what may enter the manifesto for the next election, which we should assume to be forthcoming by April 1991. I asked what might have become of the “perestroika” manuscript I had given him at our previous meeting. He said he had gotten it copied and bound, and that along with my 1984 monograph, it had been circulated among a few of his party colleagues who included P. Chidambaram and Mani Shankar Aiyar.

The initial meeting left us breathless and excited. Yet within a few days, the others became extremely tied up for personal causes, and I found myself alone in getting on with doing what we had been explicitly asked to do. I felt I should get done what I could in the time I had while keeping the others informed. Rajiv had said to me at our first meeting that he felt the Congress was ready for elections. This did not seem to me to be really the case. He actually seemed very isolated in his office, with George seeming to be his conduit to the outside world. I decided to start by trying to write a definite set of general principles that could guide and inform thought about the direction of policy. I spent the evening of October 26 in the offices at Rajiv’s residence, preparing an economic policy memorandum on a portable Toshiba computer of his, the first laptop I ever used. After Rajiv’s assassination, this was part of what was published in The Statesmen’s center pages July 31-August 2, 1991.

Rajiv read the work and met me on October 30 or 31, even though he was down badly with a sore throat after his sadbhavana travels around the country; he looked odd clad in khadi with a muffler and gym shoes. He said he liked very much what I had written and had given it to be read by younger Congress leaders who would discuss it for the manifesto, for an election he again said, he expected early in 1991. I said I was grateful for his kind words and inquired whom he had shown the work to. This time he said Chidambaram and also mentioned another name that made me wince. In December 1990, I was back in Hawaii when I was called on the phone to ask whether I could come to Delhi. With the rise of Chandrashekhar as Prime Minister, Rajiv had called a meeting of the group. But I could not go.

In January 1991, the Gulf War brought an odd twist to my interaction with Rajiv. On January 15, the UN deadline for the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait passed without Iraqi compliance, and American-led forces started the heavy aerial bombardment of Iraq. The American media had built up the impending war as one of utter devastation and mass killing, especially when the American infantry became engaged. Estimated casualties on the American side alone were being wildly exaggerated by the number of “body-bags” being ordered by the Pentagon. An even larger conflagration was being imagined if Israel entered the fighting, while Saddam Hussein had vowed to set fire to Kuwait’s oil-fields before retreating. I like everyone else erroneously believed the media’s hyperbole about the impending regional catastrophe. On January 16, just after the bombing of Iraq had begun, I called an American family friend who had retired from a senior foreign policy role and who had known me from when I was an infant. In informal conversation, I mentioned to him that since other channels had by then become closed, an informal channel might be attempted via India, specifically via Rajiv who was still Leader of the Opposition but on whom the Chandrashekhar Government depended. The sole aim would be to compel an immediate Iraqi withdrawal without further loss of life. What transpired over the next few days was that a proposal to that effect was communicated at Rajiv’s decision to a high level of the Iraqis on the one hand, and evidently received their assent, while at the same time, it was mentioned to the authorities on the American side. But nothing came of it. Rajiv initiated a correspondence with Chandrashekhar beginning January 19, demanding a coherent formulation of Indian policy in the Gulf war, and faxed me copies of this. By February 8, the Times of India led by saying Rajiv’s stand “on the Gulf War demonstrates both his experience and perspicacity … in consonance with an enlightened vision of national interest”, and urged Rajiv to “give the nation some respite from [the] non-government” of Chandrashekhar. I taped my phone conversations with Rajiv during the Gulf War because notes could not be taken at the necessary speed; in late December 1991, I was to give his widow a copy of the tape for her personal record.

I returned to Delhi on Monday, March 18, 1991 as new elections had been announced. Rasgotra said I should be in touch with Krishna Rao, and the next day March 19 Krishna Rao met me for several hours. I told him what I thought were the roots and results of the Gulf war. He in turn generously told me what had happened while I had been away. He said the group had met Rajiv in December with the proposal that Rajiv better organize his time by having an “office manager” of larger political stature than George. The name of a UP Congressman of integrity had been put forward, but nothing had come of it. Rajiv had been advised to keep Chandrashekhar in power through the autumn of 1991, as Chandrashekhar was doing Rajiv’s work for him of sidelining V. P. Singh. The idea was to cooperate with Chandrashekhar until he could be pushed up to the Presidency when that fell vacant. Rajiv had been advised not to work in a Chandrashekhar cabinet, though in my opinion, had we been like the Scandinavians, it was not impossible for a former prime minister to enter another cabinet on the right terms in the national interest of providing stable government, which was imperative at the time. Things seem to have slipped out of control when Chandrashekhar resigned. At that point, Rajiv called the group together and instructed them to write a draft of the manifesto for the impending elections. I had advised readiness back in September but the lack of organization had prevented much tangible progress at the time. Our group was to now report to a political manifesto-committee of three senior party leaders who would report to Rajiv. They were Narasimha Rao, Pranab Mukherjee and Madhavsingh Solanki. Krishna Rao liased with Narasimha Rao, Krishnamurty with Mukherjee, Pitroda with Solanki. While Rajiv would obviously lead a new Congress Government, Mukherjee was the presumptive Finance Minister, while Narasimha Rao and Solanki would have major portfolios though Narasimha Rao was expected to retire before too long.

Krishna Rao said I should be in touch with Krishnamurty who was preparing the economic chapters of the draft of the manifesto. Krishnamurty told me he had brought in A. M. Khusro to the group, and there would be a 5 p.m. meeting at Khusro’s office at the Aga Khan Foundation. I arrived early and was delighted to meet Khusro, and he seemed pleased to meet me. Khusro seemed excited by my view that India and Pakistan were spending excessively on defence against each other, which resonated with his own ideas, and he remarked the fiscal disarray in India and Pakistan could start to be set right by mutually agreed cuts in military spending. (Khusro was eventually to accompany Prime Minister Vajpayee to Lahore in 1999).

Krishnamurty had prepared a draft dated March 18 of several pages of the economic aspects of the manifesto. After our discussions, Krishnamurty was hospitable enough to open the draft to improvement. That evening, the 19th, I worked through the night and the next morning to get by noon copies of a revised version with all the members of the group. At 4 p.m. on the 20th there was a meeting at Andhra Bhavan of the whole group except Pitroda, which went on until the night. The next day the 21st , Krishnamurty, Khusro and I met again at Andhra Bhavan for a few hours on the economic aspects of the draft. Then in mid-afternoon I went to Rasgotra’s home to work with him and Krishna Rao. They wanted me to produce the economic draft which they could then integrate as they wished into the material they were dictating to a typist. I offered instead to absorb their material directly on to my laptop computer where the economic draft was. Rasgotra was reluctant to let go control, and eventually I gave in and said I would get them a hard copy of the economic draft, which they then planned to re-draft via a stenographer on a typewriter. At this, Rasgotra gave in and agreed to my solution. So the work began and the three of us continued until late.

That night Krishna Rao dropped me at Tughlak Road where I used to stay with friends. In the car I told him, as he was a military man with heavy security cover for himself as a former Governor of J&K, that it seemed to me Rajiv’s security was being unprofessionally handled, that he was vulnerable to a professional assassin. Krishna Rao asked me if I had seen anything specific by way of vulnerability. With John Kennedy and De Gaulle in mind, I said I feared Rajiv was open to a long-distance sniper, especially when he was on his campaign trips around the country.

This was one of several attempts I made since October 1990 to convey my clear impression to whomever I thought might have an effect that Rajiv seemed to me extremely vulnerable. Rajiv had been on sadhbhavana journeys, back and forth into and out of Delhi. I had heard he was fed up with his security apparatus, and I was not surprised given it seemed at the time rather bureaucratized. It would not have been appropriate for me to tell him directly that he seemed to me to be vulnerable, since I was a newcomer and a complete amateur about security issues, and besides if he agreed he might seem to himself to be cowardly or have to get even closer to his security apparatus. Instead I pressed the subject relentlessly with whomever I could. I suggested specifically two things: (a) that the system in place at Rajiv’s residence and on his itineraries be tested, preferably by some internationally recognized specialists in counter-terrorism; (b) that Rajiv be encouraged to announce a shadow-cabinet. The first would increase the cost of terrorism, the second would reduce the potential political benefit expected by terrorists out to kill him. On the former, it was pleaded that security was a matter being run by the V. P. Singh and then Chandrashekhar Governments at the time. On the latter, it was said that appointing a shadow cabinet might give the appointees the wrong idea, and lead to a challenge to Rajiv’s leadership. This seemed to me wrong, as there was nothing to fear from healthy internal contests for power so long as they were conducted in a structured democratic framework. I pressed to know how public Rajiv’s itinerary was when he travelled. I was told it was known to everyone and that was the only way it could be since Rajiv wanted to be close to the people waiting to see him and had been criticized for being too aloof. This seemed to me totally wrong and I suggested that if Rajiv wanted to be seen as meeting the crowds waiting for him then that should be done by planning to make random stops on the road that his entourage would take. This would at least add some confusion to the planning of potential terrorists out to kill him. When I pressed relentlessly, it was said I should probably speak to “Madame”, i.e. to Mrs. Rajiv Gandhi. That seemed to me highly inappropriate, as I could not be said to be known to her and I should not want to unduly concern her in the event it was I who was completely wrong in my assessment of the danger. The response that it was not in Congress’s hands, that it was the responsibility of the V. P. Singh and later the Chandrashekhar Governments, seemed to me completely irrelevant since Congress in its own interests had a grave responsibility to protect Rajiv Gandhi irrespective of what the Government’s security people were doing or not doing. Rajiv was at the apex of the power structure of the party, and a key symbol of secularism and progress for the entire country. Losing him would be quite irreparable to the party and the country. It shocked me that the assumption was not being made that there were almost certainly professional killers actively out to kill Rajiv Gandhi — this loving family man and hapless pilot of India’s ship of state who did not seem to have wished to make enemies among India’s terrorists but whom the fates had conspired to make a target. The most bizarre and frustrating response I got from several respondents was that I should not mention the matter at all as otherwise the threat would become enlarged and the prospect made more likely! This I later realized was a primitive superstitious response of the same sort as wearing amulets and believing in Ptolemaic astrological charts that assume the Sun goes around the Earth — centuries after Kepler and Copernicus. Perhaps the entry of scientific causality and rationality is where we must begin in the reform of India’s governance and economy. What was especially repugnant after Rajiv’s assassination was to hear it said by his enemies that it marked an end to “dynastic” politics in India. This struck me as being devoid of all sense because the unanswerable reason for protecting Rajiv Gandhi was that we in India, if we are to have any pretensions at all to being a civilized and open democratic society, cannot tolerate terrorism and assassination as means of political change. Either we are constitutional democrats willing to fight for the privileges of a liberal social order, or ours is truly a primitive and savage anarchy concealed beneath a veneer of fake Westernization.

The next day, Friday March 22, I worked from dawn to get the penultimate draft to Krishna Rao before noon as planned the night before. Rasgotra arrived shortly, and the three of us worked until evening to finish the job. I left for an hour to print out copies for a meeting of the entire group, where the draft we were going to submit would come to be decided. When I got back I found Rasgotra had launched an extended and quite unexpected attack on what had been written on economic policy. Would someone like Manmohan Singh, Rasgotra wanted to know, agree with all this talk we were putting in about liberalization and industrial efficiency? I replied I did not know what Manmohan Singh’s response would be but I knew he had been in Africa heading something called the South-South Commission for Julius Nyrere of Tanzania. I said what was needed was a clear forceful statement designed to restore India’s credit-worthiness, and the confidence of international markets. I said that the sort of thing we should aim for was to make clear, e.g. to the IMF’s man in Delhi when that person read the manifesto, that the Congress Party at least knew its economics and was planning to make bold new steps in the direction of progress. I had argued the night before with Rasgotra that on foreign policy we should “go bilateral” with good strong ties with individual countries, and drop all the multilateral hogwash. But I did not wish to enter into a fight on foreign policy which he was writing, so long as the economic policy was left the way we said. Krishnamurty, Khusro and Pitroda came to my defence saying the draft we had done greatly improved on the March 18 draft. For a bare half hour or so with all of us present, the draft was agreed upon. Later that night at Andhra Bhavan, I gave Krishna Rao the final copy of the draft manifesto which he was going to give Narasimha Rao the next day, and sent a copy to Krishnamurty who was liaising with Pranab Mukherjee. Pitroda got a copy on a floppy disc the next day for Solanki.

In its constructive aspects, the March 22 1991 draft of the Congress manifesto went as follows with regard to economic policy: “CHAPTER V AGENDA FOR ECONOMIC ACTION 1. Control of Inflation …. The Congress believes the inflation and price-rise of essential commodities… is a grave macroeconomic problem facing the country today. It has hit worst the poorest and weakest sections of our people and those with fixed incomes like pensioners. The Congress will give highest priority to maintaining the prices of essential commodities, increasing their production and supply using all appropriate economic instruments. 2. Macroeconomic Policy Framework To control inflation of the general price-level, the Congress will provide a predictable long-term policy framework. The average Indian household and business will not have their lives and plans disrupted by sudden changes in economic policy. Coherent monetary policy measures will be defined as called for by the Report of Experts of the Reserve Bank of India in 1985. The Long-Term Fiscal Policy introduced by the Congress Government of 1984-1989 will be revived. Medium and long-term export-import policies will be defined. The basis for a strong India must be a strong economy. The Congress believes a high rate of real growth is essential for securing a strong national defence, social justice and equity, and a civilized standard of living for all. As the party of self-reliance, Congress believes resources for growth must be generated from within our own economy. This means all wasteful and unproductive Government spending has to be cut, and resources transferred from areas of low priority to areas of high national priority. Subsidies have to be rationalized and reduced, and productivity of investments already made has to be improved. The widening gap between revenue receipts and revenue expenditure must be corrected through fiscal discipline, and the growing national debt brought under control as a matter of high priority. These policies in a consistent framework will create the environment for the freeing of the rupee in due course, making it a hard currency of the world of which our nation can be proud. Public resources are not unlimited. These have to be allocated to high priority areas like essential public services, poverty-reduction, strategic sectors, and protection of the interests of the weaker sections of society. Government has to leave to the initiative and enterprise of the people what can be best done by themselves. Government can now progressively vacate some areas of activity to the private, cooperative and non-government sectors. Black money in the parallel economy has become the plague of our economic and political system. This endangers the social and moral fabric of our nation. Artificial price controls, excessive licensing, capacity restrictions, outmoded laws on rent control and urban ceiling, and many other outdated rules and regulations have contributed to pushing many honest citizens into dishonest practices. The Congress will tackle the problem of black money at its roots by attacking all outmoded and retrograde controls, and simplifying procedures in all economic spheres. At the same time, the tax-base of the economy must be increased via simplification and rationalization of tax-rates and coverage, user-fees for public goods, and reduction of taxes wherever possible to improve incentives and stimulate growth. 3. Panchayati Raj India’s farmers and khet mazdoors are the backbone of our economy. Economic development is meaningless until their villages provide them a wholesome rural life. The Congress will revitalize Panchayat Raj institutions to decentralize decision-making, so development can truly benefit local people most effectively. 4. Rural Development Basic economic infrastructure like roads, communications, fresh drinking water, and primary health and education for our children must reach all our villages. The Congress believes such a policy will also relieve pressures from migration on our towns and cities…… Through the Green Revolution which the Congress pioneered over 25 years, our farmers have prospered. Now our larger farmers must volunteer to contribute more to the national endeavour, and hence to greater equity and overall economic development. Equity demands land revenue should be mildly graduated so that small farmers holding less than one acre pay less land revenue per acre…. 9. Education and Health The long-run prosperity of our nation depends on the general state of education, health and well-being of our people. Small families give themselves more choice and control over their own lives. Improving female literacy, promoting the welfare of nursing mothers and reducing infant mortality will have a direct bearing on reducing the birth-rate and improving the health and quality of all our people. Primary and secondary education has high social returns and is the best way in the long-run for achievement of real equality. Efforts will be made to reduce the cost of education for the needy through concessional supply of books and other study materials, scholarships and assistance for transportation and residential facilities. The Congress Party pledges to dedicate itself to promoting education, especially in rural areas and especially for girls and the weaker sections of society. The next Congress Government will prepare and launch a 10-year programme for introduction of free and compulsory primary education for all children of school age. It will continue to emphasize vocational bias in education, integrating it closely with employment opportunities…. 11. Industrial Efficiency Our industrial base in the private and public sectors are the core of our economy. What we have achieved until today has been creditable, and we are self-reliant in many areas. Now the time has come for industry to provide more efficiency and better service and product-quality for the Indian consumer. The public sector has helped the Indian economy since Independence and many national goals have been achieved. Now it has become imperative that the management of public sector units is made effective, and their productivity increased. Major steps must be taken for greater accountability and market-orientation. Failure to do this will make our country lose more and more in the international economy. Budgetary support will be given only for public sector units in the core and infrastructure sectors. Emphasis will be on improving performance and productivity of existing investments, not on creating added organizations or over manning. Units not in the core sector will be privatised gradually. Even in core sectors like Telecommunications, Power, Steel and Coal, incremental needs can be taken care of by the private sector. The Government-Enterprise interface must be properly defined in a White Paper. The Congress believes privatisation must distribute the profits equitably among the people of India. In order to make our public enterprises truly public, it is essential that the shares of many such enterprises are widely held by the members of the general public and workers. Congress pledges to allot a proportion of such shares to the rural Panchayats and Nagarpalikas. This will enhance their asset-base and yield income for their development activities, as well as improve income-distribution. 12. Investment and Trade Indian industry, Government and professional managers are now experienced enough to deal with foreign companies on an equal footing, and channel direct foreign investment in desired directions. Foreign companies often bring access to advanced technological know-how, without which the nation cannot advance. The Congress Government will formulate a pragmatic policy channelling foreign investment into areas important to the national interest. Every effort must be made also to encourage Indians who are outside India to invest in the industry, trade and real estate of their homeland. Because of the protected and inflationary domestic market, Indian industry has become complacent and the incentive for industrial exports has been weakened. When all production is comfortably absorbed at home, Indian industry makes the effort to venture into exports only as a last resort. This must change. A Congress Government will liberalize and deregulate industry to make it competitive and export-oriented, keeping in mind always the interests of the Indian consumer in commercial policy. Export-oriented and predictable commercial policies will be encouraged. Existing procedural constraints and bottlenecks will be removed. Quotas and tariffs will be rationalized. Thrust areas for export-development will be identified and monitored. Efforts will be made to develop a South Asian Community. Trade and economic cooperation among South Asian countries must be increased and simplified.”

This March 22 1991 draft of the Congress’s intended economic policies got circulated and discussed, and from it rumours and opinions appeared that Congress was planning to launch a major economic reform in India. Economic Times said the manifesto “is especially notable for its economic agenda” and Business Standard said “if party manifestos decide election battles” Congress must be “considered home and dry”. A senior IMF official told me three years later the manifesto had indeed seemed a radical and bold move in the direction of progress, which had been exactly our intended effect. When I met Manmohan Singh at the residence of S. S. Ray in September 1993 in Washington, Ray told him and his senior aides the Congress manifesto had been written on my computer. Manmohan Singh smiled and said that when Arjun Singh and other senior members of the Congress had challenged him in the cabinet, he had pointed to the manifesto. Yet, oddly enough, while the March 22 draft got discussed and circulated, and the Indian economic reform since July 1991 corresponded in fundamental ways to its contents as reproduced above, the actual published Congress manifesto in April 1991 was as tepid and rhetorical as usual, as if some party hack had before publication put in the usual nonsense about e.g. bringing down inflation via price-controls. Certainly the published manifesto was wholly undistinguished in its economic aspects, and had nothing in it to correspond to the bold change of attitude towards economic policy that actually came to be signalled by the 1991 Government.

On March 23, our group was to meet Rajiv at noon. There was to be an event in the inner lawns of Rajiv’s residence in the morning, where he would launch Krishna Rao’s book on India’s security. Krishna Rao had expressly asked me to come but I had to wait outside the building patiently, not knowing if it was a mistake or if it was deliberate. This was politics after all, and I had ruffled feathers during my short time there. While I waited, Rajiv was speaking to a farmers’ rally being held at grounds adjoining his residence, and there appeared to be thousands of country folk who had gathered to hear him. When it was over, Rajiv, smiling nervously and looking extremely uncomfortable, was hoisted atop people’s shoulders and carried back to the residence by his audience. As I watched, my spine ran cold at the thought that any killer could have assassinated him with ease in that boisterous crowd, right there in the middle of Delhi outside his own residence. It was as if plans for his security had been drawn up without any strategic thinking underlying them.

Krishna Rao arrived and graciously took me inside for his book launch. The event was attended by the Congress’s top brass, including Narasimha Rao whom I met for the first time, as well as foreign military attaches and officers of the Indian armed forces. The attaché of one great power went about shaking hands and handing out his business card to everyone. I stood aside and watched. Delhi felt to me that day like a sieve, as if little could be done without knowledge of the embassies. One side wanted to sell arms, aircraft or ships, while the other wanted trips abroad or jobs or green cards or whatever for their children. And I thought Islamabad would be worse — could India and Pakistan make peace in this fetid ether?

Proceedings began when Rajiv arrived. This elite audience mobbed him just as the farmers had mobbed him earlier. He saw me and beamed a smile in recognition, and I smiled back but made no attempt to draw near him in the crush. He gave a short very apt speech on the role the United Nations might have in the new post-Gulf War world. Then he launched the book, and left for an investiture at Rashtrapati Bhavan. We waited for our meeting with him, which finally happened in the afternoon. Rajiv was plainly at the point of exhaustion and still hard-pressed for time. He seemed pleased to see me and apologized for not talking in the morning. Regarding the March 22 draft, he said he had not read it but that he would be doing so. He said he expected the central focus of the manifesto to be on economic reform, and an economic point of view in foreign policy, and in addition an emphasis on justice and the law courts. I remembered our September 18 conversation and had tried to put in justice and the courts into our draft but had been over-ruled by others. I now said the social returns of investment in the judiciary were high but was drowned out again. Rajiv was clearly agitated that day by the BJP and blurted out he did not really feel he understood what on earth they were on about. He said about his own family, “We’re not religious or anything like that, we don’t pray every day.” I felt again what I had felt before, that here was a tragic hero of India who had not really wished to be more than a happy family man until he reluctantly was made into a national leader against his will. We were with him for an hour or so. As we were leaving, he said quickly at the end of the meeting he wished to see me on my own and would be arranging a meeting. One of our group was staying back to ask him a favour. Just before we left, I managed to say to him what I felt was imperative: “The Iraq situation isn’t as it seems, it’s a lot deeper than it’s been made out to be.” He looked at me with a serious look and said “Yes I know, I know.” It was decided Pitroda would be in touch with each of us in the next 24 hours. During this time Narasimha Rao’s manifesto committee would read the draft and any questions they had would be sent to us. We were supposed to be on call for 24 hours. The call never came. Given the near total lack of system and organization I had seen over the months, I was not surprised. Krishna Rao and I waited another 48 hours, and then each of us left Delhi. Before going I dropped by to see Krishnamurty, and we talked at length. He talked especially about the lack of the idea of teamwork in India. Krishnamurty said he had read everything I had written for the group and learned a lot. I said that managing the economic reform would be a critical job and the difference between success and failure was thin.

I got the afternoon train to Calcutta and before long left for America to bring my son home for his summer holidays with me. In Singapore, the news suddenly said Rajiv Gandhi had been killed. All India wept. What killed him was not merely a singular act of criminal terrorism, but the system of humbug, incompetence and sycophancy that surrounds politics in India and elsewhere. I was numbed by rage and sorrow, and did not return to Delhi. Eleven years later, on 25 May 2002, press reports said “P. V. Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh lost their place in Congress history as architects of economic reforms as the Congress High command sponsored an amendment to a resolution that had laid credit at the duo’s door. The motion was moved by…. Digvijay Singh asserting that the reforms were a brainchild of the late Rajiv Gandhi and that the Rao-Singh combine had simply nudged the process forward.” Rajiv’s years in Government, like those of Indira Gandhi, were in fact marked by profligacy and the resource cost of poor macroeconomic policy since bank-nationalisation may be as high as Rs. 125 trillion measured in 1994 rupees. Certainly though it was Rajiv Gandhi as Leader of the Opposition in his last months who was the principal architect of the economic reform that came to begin after his passing.

Pricing, Planning & Politics: A Study of Economic Distortions in India (1984)

Pricing, Planning & Politics: A Study of Economic Distortions in India Subroto Roy

First published on May 29 1984 as Occasional Paper No. 69 of the Institute of Economic Affairs, London

Preface March 2007

A quarter century has passed since my 1982 doctoral thesis at Cambridge University under Frank Hahn, examined by Christopher Bliss and Terence Hutchison, and titled “On liberty and economic growth: preface to a philosophy for India.” I wrote what follows shortly afterwards in Blacksburg, Virginia, and Ithaca, New York, and it was published on May 29 1984 in London by the Institute of Economic Affairs as Occasional Paper No. 69, ISBN: 0-255 36169-6. The day it was published it turned out to be the subject of the main editorial of The Times, then London’s leading newspaper. (I learnt later this had been due to Peter Bauer, and also that 700 copies sold in the first month, a record for the publisher.) The Times editorial though laudatory was misleading, and I had to clarify the contents of the monograph in a letter published on June 16 1984; both documents are available elsewhere at this site.

This work was the first explicit critique of post-Mahalanobis Indian economic thought from a classical liberal perspective since B. R. Shenoy’s initial criticism decades previously. I was 29 when it was published, I am 52 now. I do not agree with everything I wrote back then and find the tone a little puffed up as young men tend to be; it was five years before publication of my main “theoretical” work Philosophy of Economics: On the Scope of Reason in Economic Inquiry (Routledge: London & New York, 1989, also now republished here). My experience of life in the years since has also made me far less sanguine both about human nature and about America than I was then. But I am glad to find I am not embarrassed by what I said as a young man, indeed I am pleased I said what I did in favour of classical liberalism and against statism and totalitarianism well before it became popular to do so after the Berlin Wall fell. (In India as elsewhere, former communist apparatchiks and fellow-travellers became pseudo-liberals overnight.)

The famous November 1955 Milton Friedman memorandum is referred to herein for the first time as “unpublished” in note 1; I was to meet Milton and Rose Friedman at the Mont Pelerin Society meetings held at Cambridge later that year, where I gave them a copy of this monograph; when Milton returned to Stanford he sent to me in Blacksburg his original 1955-56 documents on Indian planning. I published the 1955 document for the first time in May 1989 during the University of Hawaii perestroika-for-India project that I was then leading, it appeared later in the 1992 volume Foundations of India’s Political Economy: Towards an Agenda for the 1990s, edited by myself and WE James. The results of the Hawaii project reached Rajiv Gandhi through my hand in September 1990, as told elsewhere in “Rajiv Gandhi and the Origins of India’s 1991 Economic Reform”. The 1956 document was published in November 2006 on the front page of The Statesman, on the same day my obituary of Milton appeared in the inside pages (both are republished here too).

It is apparent from this monograph that I knew almost nothing then about Pakistan or Islam; that has changed as may be seen especially from the other book I created with WE James at the University of Hawaii, Foundations of Pakistan’s Political Economy: Towards an Agenda for the 1990s, as well as my more recent work on Pakistan and Islam. It is of course impossible to understand India without understanding Pakistan and vice versa.

In general, this monograph had to do with India’s microeconomics and theory of value and resource allocation while my latest work – “India’s Macroeconomics”, “Fiscal Instability”, “India’s Trade and Payments”, “Our Policy Process”, “Fallacious Finance”, “The Dream Team: A Critique” . “Against Quackery”, “Growth & Government Delusion” etc – has to do with India’s macroeconomics and monetary and fiscal theory and policy. Part of the criticism of “distorted incentives” prevailing in Indira Gandhi’s India may still be relevant to India today, while the discussion of ethnic problems, agriculture, the “public choice” factors that stymie Indian progress, misgovernance etc will almost certainly be found so.

Pricing, Planning and Politics:

A Study of Economic Distortions in India

First published on May 29 1984 as Occasional Paper No. 69 of the Institute of Economic Affairs, London

“The economic laws which operate in India are the same as in other countries of the world; the causes which lead to wealth among other nations lead to prosperity in India; the causes which impoverish other nations impoverish the people of India. Therefore, the line of enquiry which the economist will pursue in respect of India is the same which he adopts in inquiring into the wealth or poverty of other nations.” Romesh Chunder Dutt, 1906, The Economic History of India

“Satyameva Jayathe” (“Let truth be victorious”), Motto of the Indian Republic

I. INTRODUCTION

IN THE last 15 years, considerable evidence has accumulated to suggest that the most important policies pursued by successive governments of independent India have not been conducive to economic development, and have indeed gone against some of the most basic lessons that political economy has to offer. Forewarnings of the present predicament of India had come from a few economists in the late 1950s and early 1960s, but their arguments were either ignored or maligned as dogmatic and motivated by`ideology’.[1] My thesis in this Occasional Paper will be that, if the basic and commonsensical lessons of political economy had been acknowledged early on in the history of the Indian Republic, we might have found today a much more prosperous economy and a much healthier body politic than is the case.

To argue this, it is first necessary to describe an economy where the pursuit of the individual good by rational agents is conducted within some set of orderly political institutions which is conducive to both civil peace and sustained mass prosperity. Accordingly, Part I of this short Paper begins by describing the broad and familiar features of what may be called a neo-classical or liberal model, and then proceeds briefly to contrast it with a model in which individual incentives and public institutions have been distorted from their efficient characterizations.

The practical question that arises is: Where in practice have independent India’s policies led most conspicuously to distorted incentives and institutions? This will be the subject of Part III. Part II places the discussion in context by briefly describing a few relevant aspects of the political history of the Indian Republic.

I have argued elsewhere that every normative proposal for action is, in principle, open to question and criticism on the logical and factual grounds upon which it is founded. Whenever two people disagree about what ought to be done, it will be found either that at least one of them has made a mistake of logic or that they are also in disagreement about the facts of the case.[2] In Part IV, a tentative manifesto for political and economic reform in India is proposed, and I hope these proposals too will be subjected to critical scrutiny on the positive grounds upon which I shall seek to establish them.

Part I: Theory

2. EFFICIENT INCENTIVES AND INSTITUTIONS

A `FACT’ may be understood as the opposite of that which could have been the case but is not. A basic fact of the study of men and society – one which was acknowledged first by Aristotle and then, very importantly, by Adam Smith, and which has been emphasized in modern times by Friedrich Hayek – is that, while we are able to study and speak of the nature of human decision and action in general terms, we do not and cannot have a knowledge of how particular actions are moved by particular causes and circumstances.[3]

We might certainly know, for instance, that every household in an economy views some horizons, wants to fulfill some aspirations, and faces some constraints. But if we were asked to specify what all these characteristics happened to be as a matter of fact at any one moment, we would certainly not be able to do so. Men are concerned almost wholly with (and are experts at) living their own lives as best they can – foraging for food, shelter and work, celebrating weddings and births, rearing children, and mourning deaths. For the most part, they are neither interested in, nor competent at judging, what others happen to be doing in their private lives. Neither benevolence nor envy extends much beyond a man’s immediate vicinity, and, certainly, neither can extend to people he does not know or come to know of in the course of a lifetime.

This fact is also acknowledged in modern microeconomics, when it is said that, for the individual agent to be able to make decisions and act upon them, it is sufficient for him to know (besides his own desires, abilities and constraints) only of the relative prices prevailing locally of the goods and skills he wishes to trade.`Efficient incentive’ defined We might then provisionally define an `efficient incentive’ as a set of relative prices and wages such that, when economic agents act upon them, three conditions are fulfilled:(i) the difference between the total demand for and the total supply of every good and skill is zero; (ii) every consumer succeeds in trading the amounts of different goods that he desires, and so obtains the highest utility he can within the constraint of his budget; (iii) every private enterprise maximizes the difference between its total revenues and total costs, that is, its profits. [4]

Rational action, however, occurs within a particular institutional context. Which action is rational and which is not will depend on what institutions there are and how well or poorly they function. As both classical liberals and Marxists argue, the neo-Walrasian tradition in modern economics – as exemplified by the Arrow-Debreu model – is practically devoid of any explicit institutional description, and so may best be regarded as a useful but grossly incomplete metaphor in the economist’s inquiry.

The institutions most relevant to economic activity are those of government. We might therefore add a fourth condition to characterize an efficient economy, namely, that government institutions work in such a way as to allocate tax revenues towards providing public goods in the amounts desired by citizens. This must be an institutional assumption implicit in the general equilibrium construction, without which it would be impossible to see the sense of that model.

The question that follows is how we are to ascertain the composition of the set of public goods to be provided. As is commonly known, this seems to confront the economist with numerous conceptual and practical problems. I propose here to circumvent all the typical difficulties of how to discover and combine individual preferences for public goods, or how to prevent free-riders, and to take a somewhat different route.

Functions of civil government: protection, public goods, education

To answer the question `What should be public goods first and foremost? I suggest we look for the kind of answer Adam Smith or Jeremy Bentham or J. S. Mill might have given to a related but different question : `What should be the functions of government in a large civil society, regardless of whether or not it is constituted democratically?’ This was the relevant question before the modern era of mass democracy. And it is still interesting because, first, it probably remains the appropriate question for the many countries today which either do not have democratic governments or do not have long histories of democracy, and, secondly, because the kinds of answer given by classical authors were very similar to those we might expect from individual citizens in modern democracies as well.

The most important practical functions of civil government include defence against external aggression, the dispensing of civil and criminal justice, the protection of life, property and trade – broadly, the Rule of Law – and the pursuit of a judicious foreign policy. All are different aspects of the same broad objective of ensuring the survival of the community and the security of individual life.

Yet no pretext has been more common than that an imminent danger to the security of the community requires the government to take despotic measures. The guarantee by a civil government of the freedom of inquiry, discourse, criticism, and historical research should take precedence, therefore, even over ensuring security and survival, for it is probably the only final check there can be on whether what a government says is or is not in fact the case. Where this freedom is forcibly denied, or where it exists but people are too apathetic, ignorant or busy with their daily lives to exercise it, public life soon becomes self deceptive and absurd, with propaganda taking the place of discourse, and pretensions and appearances diverging more and more from attainments and reality. Wherever the questions `What is true?’ or `What is the case?’ are not asked frequently enough, there will be fewer and fewer correct answers as to what the case happens to be.[5]
After collective and individual security, the functions of government include the building of dams, embankments, bridges and canals, the provision of roads and fresh water, and so on – activities which, as Adam Smith put it, “. . . though they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society, are, however, of such a nature that the profit could never repay the expence to any individual or small number of individuals, and which it, therefore, cannot be expected that any individual or small number of individuals should erect or maintain.” [6]

Each may be more or less a “pure” public good in the modern sense :“that each individual’s consumption of such a good leads to no subtraction from any other individual’s consumption of that good”.[7]

Such a list could be extended to include activities as diverse as: the prevention of soil erosion; the public finance of school education, and’ of measures of basic public health such as vaccinations against contagious diseases; the issuing of currency; sewage disposal; population censuses; the standardization of weights and measures; and so on. It is unnecessary to be more specific here since some people will find even this list controversial. Dogmatists will deny the need for free inquiry; pacifists will dispute that defence is a public good; communists will protest against the public protection of private property; `anarcho-capitalists’ will contest the public dispensation of justice; and so on. To these critics, I would offer merely the following short and incomplete reply.

First, a sound argument can be made that what functions civil government should have can be ascertained, without prejudice, by reasonable citizens, though which particular functions these are may well vary according to circumstances. Secondly, if we could spend time in thoughtful and leisured conversation with every citizen of a large community, it might be predicted – as a matter of cold, empirical fact – that practically everyone would agree with the suggestion that the first destinations of tax revenues should indeed be activities like defence, civil protection and the Rule of Law, the provision of roads, and so on. If such a prediction is correct, my thesis is plainly much more democratic than it might appear to modern economists, though I shall later claim that an objective defence of democratic institutions can be made on quite different grounds as well.

If there is a clear family resemblance between classical liberal authors – from Smith and Mill through to Hayek, Robbins, Friedman, Buchanan, Bauer and many others – it has to do, not so much with the denunciation of government activity in the market-place, as with the recognition of the existence of certain duties of government outside it, the fulfillment of which are indispensable to civil life, let alone the pursuit of economic prosperity. Their protest is at the high opportunity cost of the alternatives foregone.

This raises the question of how we might tell whether government is working well or badly in a particular country at a particular time, or, generally, how we might tell whether different public goods are provided in too small or large amounts. For present purposes it will again be sufficient to suggest a very rough and common sense way of proceeding: let us look first, and think second.

For example, the Iran-Iraq war has clearly been a perfect public bad as far as the ordinary citizenry in either country are concerned. Similarly, if there happen to be millions of cases queuing outside the courts waiting to be heard, or if crime is rampant and police protection ineffective, that may constitute prima facie evidence that too few public resources have been devoted to civil order and justice. Or, if heavy rainfall annually causes landslides in the hills and floods in the plains, devastating crops and leaving innumerable citizens destitute, that also might prompt us to ask whether sufficient public resources have gone towards precautions against such havoc. And so on.[8]

Which goods happen to be public goods depends on the circumstances and the level of government being discussed. For similar circumstances and levels, similar goods will most likely be public goods in different countries. The state ordinarily consists not only of the national government but also of several provincial governments and a myriad of local governments. In particular, a premise of the liberal state would be that public goods should in fact be provided by various levels of government, financed through taxes paid respectively at those levels. The citizen is a taxpayer at a variety of levels, and accordingly public goods are due to be provided at a variety of levels. Just as the national government may not usurp the power to tax for, or spend money on, a public good which is best provided by a provincial government to the citizens of a province, so a provincial government may not tax for, or spend on, a public good best provided by a local government to the citizens of a locality.

The broad principle involved has two aspects: first, a recognition that knowledge of particular circumstances – and hence the ability to act – is infinitesimally dispersed within a population; and, secondly, as direct and visible a matching as possible of the benefits a citizen receives from a particular public good with the taxes he pays towards it, thereby perhaps reducing his incentive to be a free rider on the contributions of others.8Uncertainty and ignoranceProvisionally, therefore, efficient incentives may be thought to consist of a set of market-clearing relative prices and wages, occurring within an institutional context in which the basic and indispensable functions of government have been adequately performed at a variety of appropriate levels.

Such a definition would still be seriously incomplete in one major respect. For we must now recognise: (i) that history is unique and irretrievable, that the present consists only of the fleeting moment, and that the future, by its very nature, cannot be fully known; (ii) that such a thing as human freedom exists; and (iii) that, as a consequence, uncertainty and ignorance are ubiquitous.

Some of the uncertainty derives from the unfolding of natural events (like the rains) over which man has little or no control. The rest derives from the fact that the individual is a free agent who is affected by the actions of others but who cannot predict those actions completely because they too are free agents like himself. Game theory would have had no appeal for the economist if the existence of human freedom had not been a fact. It is this which makes it impossible to read everything in another person’s mind and thus makes it impossible to predict everything he might do. The lasting contribution of Keynesian economics could be its emphasis that such uncertainty and ignorance are important to the economist’s inquiry.

Mathematical economists have been saying for several years that what is required if we are to be realistic are models which reflect the sequential character of actual decision-making and account for the past being immutable and the future uncertain.[9] However, they have proceeded to write even more complex mathematics than we already have – disregarding Aristotle’s advice not to seek more precision from the subject of an inquiry than it may be capable of yielding.[10] My question is the more mundane one of what becomes of the classical liberals’ concept of efficient incentives and institutions in a dynamic world. I shall answer it too in a pedestrian way.

The single overwhelming reason why uncertainty and ignorance are relevant to the economist’s descriptions is that they make real the possibility of mistakes by economic agents. To extend the previous discussion to a dynamic context, what we can do is to ask which institutions are most likely to reduce or mitigate the social consequences of mistaken decisions, whether made by private agents or by those in public office. And it is here that the classical liberals advocate two important institutional features: competition and the decentralisation of decision-making.

The major value of democratic institutions over authoritarian ones is that they encourage these two principles to be put into effect. Because, in a large economy, particular knowledge is infinitesimally dispersed, it may be better for adjustments to a multitude of variables to be made continuously in response to changing circumstances by a vast number of small economic agents, rather than for adjustments to a few variables to be made at political intervals by a small group of very powerful agents. The concentration of power to make major decisions among a few fallible men is a much more ominous prospect than the distribution of power in small amounts among a large number of fallible men. It is much more dangerous for a monopoly of ideas to be claimed about where the political good of a country lies than for there to be free and open competition among such ideas at the bar of reason.

D. H. Robertson put it well when he warned “that all the eggs should not be in the same basket – that in this highly uncertain world the fortunes of a whole trade, or a whole area, should not depend on the foresight and judgement of a single centre of decision”.[11] The presumption in favour of democratic institutions is that they reduce the potential damage from wrong political decisions damage which can be rationally expected in an uncertain world.[12] Elections, in the liberal understanding, are then not so much the means to promote the interests of one’s confederates as to remove from office without bloodshed rulers who fail to do what they are entrusted with, and to replace them by those from whom better is expected. Economic efficiency in an uncertain worldThe economic notion of efficient incentives is also modified by uncertainty and ignorance. In the theory, a set of prices is market clearing only relative to unchanging preferences, resources and technologies. In a dynamic world, however, demand and supply functions are themselves changing and the notion of efficient incentives must accordingly be adapted to one in which relative prices move in the direction of the excess demand: that is, if the parameters change so that the total demand for a good or skill comes to exceed the total supply, we should want to see its relative price rising (and, conversely, if total supply exceeds total demand, we should want to see its relative price falling). During such a process of adjustment, many people may suffer very considerable hardship – something which reasonable Keynesians do well to emphasise.

If changing preferences, resources or technologies cause the demand for a product to diminish, we should want to see the firms which manufacture it either entering different markets, or improving its quality by technological innovation, or lowering prices. Similarly, we should want to see workers in these firms whether blue- or white-collar – who have skills specific to a product whose price is falling either increasing their productivity or retraining themselves in different skills more specific to the manufacture of goods whose prices are rising. Numerous enterprises can go bankrupt, and numerous workers can find themselves unable to sell the skills they possess, if they fail to adapt quickly enough to changing market conditions. The more specialised the product and the more specific the skill, the more hardship there may be. There could well be orthodox Keynesian consequences whereby laid-off workers reduce their consumption expenditures and firms on the verge of bankruptcy reduce their investment expenditures, leading to lower incomes for others, and thus to lower expenditures by them too, and so on. An anti-Keynesian who denied the existence of such hardship would be closed to the facts. He might also not be doing his own theory justice: for it is not unreasonable to argue that, while adjustments are inevitable in an uncertain world, the classical response of prices moving in the direction of excess demand probably minimises the hardship in the transition from one equilibrium to the next.

In a dynamic world, therefore, in which supply and demand functions are shifting continually and unpredictably (though probably incrementally, and not drastically), efficient incentives are better thought of as relative prices which are not stagnant but which are moving – and moving quickly – in the direction of excess demand. It should, in general, be continually profitable at the margin for firms and workers to be innovating technologically and improving productivity. As everyone knows from experience, the principle goad to such activity is fair and free competition. If a job or contract is sought badly enough, and if better quality or lower price are known to be the only criteria of selection, the expected outcome is a differentiation and improvement by competitors of the individual quality or price of what is sold.

In broad summary, the liberal understanding of how material well-being can be improved rests on the assumption that the basic functions of civil government are performed satisfactorily. Government provides the backdrop of civil order and protection necessary for private citizens freely and fairly to conduct their own lives and their transactions with one another. It is a theory which acknowledges a fundamental fact in the study of society, namely, that the individual household : (a) most commonly defines its own horizons; (b) knows the particular opportunities available to it to produce, trade and consume; (c) recognises the particular constraints which prevent it from doing all that it may desire; and(d) perceives how these opportunities and constraints may be changing. Where, as in the liberal picture, there are large numbers of producers and consumers, sellers and buyers – each family acting more or less independently – the efforts of one family do not directly make for other than its own success, while at the same time the repercussions of its mistakes are felt by itself and do not reverberate throughout the whole community. Such has been, as I see it, the American secret to mass prosperity.

3. DISTORTED INCENTIVES AND INSTITUTIONS

DISTORTED INCENTIVES are the logical opposites of efficient ones. Relative prices and wages send distorted signals to individual economic agents when they do not move in the direction of excess demand, so that there is no general tendency for markets to clear. A long-run or endemic excess demand for a good reveals itself in rationing, queueing and black markets. The price at which trade nominally takes place is too low and shows no tendency to move upwards.

Conversely, in a product market, a long-run or endemic excess supply reveals itself in surpluses and spoilages. In a labour market, it reveals itself, on the one hand, in armies of tenured employees who have no incentive to improve productivity, and, on the other hand, in lines of involuntarily or disguised unemployed who cannot sell all the skill they possess and have to settle for selling their less-specialised ones. The price at which trade nominally takes place is too high and shows no tendency to move downwards. In practical terms, firms do not find it profitable to be continually entering new markets or improving quality or enhancing technology or reducing price in order to attract and retain customers. Farmers in particular may face output and input prices which make technological improvements unprofitable.

In politics, distorted incentives are ones which make it profitable for politicians and government officials to be corruptible and taxpayers to be evasive. Because corruption is not penalised and honesty not rewarded, the pursuit of private interest may make it rational to be corrupt and irrational to be honest.

Individualism and statism

A neo-classical economic model like the one outlined above presupposes among citizens a political attitude of individualism. This may be defined as a condition in which citizens have the idea (a) that it is the individual household itself which is principally responsible for improvements in its own well-being, and (b) that government merely “is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people …”, and that government officials are merely the citizens’ “trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.” [13]

Its logical opposite may be called an attitude of statism – defined as prevailing when various classes of citizens have the idea that it is government which is and should be principally responsible for improvements in individual and public well-being. A good sense in which `power’ can be defined in political and economic contexts is as “the capacity to restrict the choices open to other men”.[14] An attitude of statism entails a willingness, or at least an acquiescence, on the part of citizens to relinquish to those in government, with little or no questioning, the power to make decisions which may affect their lives intimately. At the same time, responsibility for relapses or lack of progress in individual well-being is also thought to be the consequence of governmental and not private decision-making. Whereas individualism is a self-assertive attitude, statism is a self abnegating one. For those in government to have a statist mentality is the same as saying they are paternalistic, that is, making the presumption that the citizen is often incapable of judging for himself what is for his own good.

The suggestion that government should have the principal responsibility for improvements in individual and collective economic well-being – in the sense that the collectivity can and should satisfy the material aspirations of every individual – appears straightaway to be self contradictory. An individual can have enough difficulty trying to articulate his own horizons, aspirations and constraints, let alone trying to do the same for others. For a politician (or economist) to claim (or imply) not only that he knows(or can know) the relevant characteristics of everyone at once, but also that he knows how to ameliorate the condition of humanity at a stroke, as if by magic, would have been considered ridiculous in more candid times than ours. If we understand `collective effort’ to mean the sum of individual labours engaged in a common pursuit or endeavour, then for the collectivity to try materially to satisfy every individual would amount to imposing a duty on everyone to try materially to satisfy everyone else – an absurd state of affairs, flying in the face of the fact that most people most of the time do not wish to, or cannot, cope with much else except their private lives.

Exhorting government directly to improve the material wellbeing of `the people’ cannot mean what it seems to because it cannot refer to literally all the people but only to some of them perhaps only a majority, or only the well-organised. That the state is endogenous to the polity implies that no government has resources of its own out of which to disburse the amounts a politician may promise or an economist recommend. To fulfil new promises, given an initial condition of budgetary equilibrium, a government is only able either to print more fiat money or to tax the resources of individual citizens more heavily. Leaving aside the first alternative, fulfillment of the exhortation amounts to using public institutions to transfer resources from some people in order to keep promises made to others.

When the attitude spreads that, in politics, one man’s gain is another man’s loss, and where political control is to be had by winning majorities in elections, the citizen comes to face a perverse incentive to try to coalesce with more and more others in the hope of capturing the public revenues in his favour – instead of thinking critically about the nature of the political good as the institutions of democracy require him to. Political power becomes less dispersed, and the size of the polity diminishes in the sense that it comes to have fewer and fewer constituent agents, each of which is a larger and larger coalition of like-minded confederates intent on acquiring control for its own benefit.

Perhaps the worst consequence of a general attitude of statism, however, is that the basic, commonsensical functions of government are obscured, ignored, and neglected. Instead of requiring politicians and government officials to fulfill these functions, a citizenry allows its public agents to become brokers and entrepreneurs – trading not only in the products of government controlled industries but also in an array of positions of power and privilege, all in the name of directing a common endeavour to help the poor. The state places itself at every profitable opportunity between private citizens who might otherwise have conducted their transactions themselves perfectly well. The result is that governments do, or try to do, what either does not need to be done or ought not to be done by government, while they neglect that which only governments can do and which therefore they ought to be doing.

Part II: History

4. INDIVIDUALISM AND STATISM IN INDIA

AN ATTITUDE of statism has probably been present in India since Mughal times at least. If anything, it spread during the British period since the raison d’être of British rule in India would have vanished without paternalism (as in the course of time it did) and the existence of British rule was the raison d’être of the nationalist movement. Paternalism towards India was espoused even by those Englishmen known for their liberal views at home. Thomas Macaulay, for instance, declared to the House of Commons in 1833: “It may be that the public mind of India may expand under our system till it has outgrown that system; that by good government we may educate our subjects into a capacity for better government; that having become instructed in European knowledge, they may, in some future stage, demand European institutions. Whether such a day will ever come I know not. But never will I attempt to avert or retard it. Whenever it comes, it will be the proudest day in English history.”[15]

Less than a hundred years later, in 1930-31, the Indian National Congress – to the considerable chagrin of the British Government – resolved to bring about an independent India in which every citizen would have the right to free speech, to profess and practise his faith freely, and to move and practise his profession anywhere in the country. There would be universal adult suffrage and no-one would be unjustly deprived of his liberty or have his property entered, sequestered or confiscated. In particular, all citizens in the future republic would be `equal before the law, irrespective of religion, caste, creed or sex’, and no disability would attach`to any citizen by reason of his or her religion, caste, creed or sex, in regard to public employment, office of power or honour, and in the exercise of any trade or calling’.[16]

These resolutions were made in the thick of the battle for independence, and underscored the fundamental argument of the nationalists that, in spite of the infinitely diverse characteristics of the inhabitants of the sub-continent, a free and secular India was possible in which all would be ruled by a common law. That argument had been in contradistinction to the frequent taunt from British Conservatives that an
India without Britain would disintegrate in internecine bloodshed, and also to the later `two nations’ theory of the Muslim League which led eventually to the creation of
Pakistan. With the departure of the British and the Pakistanis, in 1950 the Constitution of the first Indian Republic was finally able to bring into force the idea of secularity which had inspired the nationalist cause. Thus, among the Fundamental Rights established by the Constitution, Article 14 provided that the state `shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of
India’. Articles 15.1, 15.2, 16.1, 16.2 and 29.2 went on to prohibit discrimination on the arbitrary grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth in matters of public employment or access to publicly-funded education.

The century between Macaulay and the resolutions for independence was by far the most important to the country’s intellectual history since earliest antiquity. While it took its turbulent course, long severed since the time of the early Greeks – came to be re-established. The common interest and the common contribution became one of admiring and learning from Europe and from India’s own past what there was to be admired and learnt, whilst forsaking and resisting what was self contradictory or base. The maxim for a century might have been : learn the good and let the evil be buried in history. As Tagore wrote :`The lamp of Europe is still burning; we must rekindle our old and extinguished lamp at that flame and start again on the road of time. We must fulfill the purpose of our connection with the English. This is the task we face in the building up of a great India.’[17]

The ideal aspired to was swaraj, or `self rule’. It literally meant not only a government of India by Indians accountable to Indians, but also the governance of the individual by himself. Not only was the country to be sovereign vis-à-vis other states; its individual citizens were to be free vis-à-vis each other and equal before its laws. Swaraj meant, in other words, a condition of political autonomy where the citizen constrained his own free actions so as not to harm others, and where the Rule of Law would protect him when he acted autonomously and resist him when he did not. Given a backdrop of civil order, the infinite number of ways to individual happiness and prosperity in an infinitely diverse sub-continent could then be pursued. Statism all pervading

An attitude of statism, however, has pervaded all public discourse in independent India, and has been reinforced by the social and economic policies pursued by successive governments.

In the first place, a ghost from earlier controversies with the British was to remain in the 1950 Constitution. Immediately after the provisions establishing equality before the law and equality of opportunity in public employment and publicly funded education, the following caveats appeared. Article 15.3 said that the state could make “any special provision for women and children”; and then, of more significance, Article 15.4 allowed the state to make “any special provisions for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes”.

Article 16.4 allowed it to make “any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State.” Lastly, Article 335 said that “the claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts [under the State] . . .” Who was to decide who was `backward’ and who was not, or which group was to be `scheduled’ and which not? Article 341.1 said that `The President may . . . by public notification specify the castes, races or tribes which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes’, and Article 341.2 added that `Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes specified under 341.1 any caste, race or tribe or part of or any group within any caste, race or tribe . . .’ Articles 342.1 and 342.2 said the same for the Scheduled Tribes.

Subsequently, two Presidential Orders named no fewer than 1,181 different groups in the country as `Scheduled Castes’ and more than 583 other groups as `Scheduled Tribes’. Roughly a sixth of the population thus came to be termed `backward’ by executive decree and were segregated by statute from the rest of the citizenry.

The direct precursor of these provisions was the `Communal Award’ by the British Government in 1932, who had taken it to be their duty “to safeguard what we believe to be the right of Depressed Classes to a fair proportion in Legislatures ”.[18] (`Depressed Classes’ was the official name for those misleadingly called `untouchables’ outside the Hindu fold.)

The complex customs of the Hindus call for endogamy and commensality among members of the same caste, thus making anyone outside a caste somewhat `untouchable’ for its members. In marriage and dining habits, many orthodox Hindus would hold foreigners, Muslims, and even Hindus of other castes at the same distance as those formally classified as `Depressed Classes’. Indeed, non-Hindus in India -including the British often maintained social protocols that were equally as strict.

No serious Indian historian would doubt that members of the `Depressed Classes’ had been oppressed and had suffered countless indignities throughout Indian history at the hands of so-called`caste Hindus’. At various times, persecution had led to mass conversions to the more secular faiths. But the ancient wrongs of the Hindu practices had to do not so much with the lack of physical contact in personal life which the word `untouchability’ connotes for Indian society has always consisted of a myriad of voluntarily segregated groups – but rather with open and obvious inequities such as the denial of equal access to temples, public wells, baths and schools.

Gandhi, who by his personal example probably did more for the cause of the `Depressed Classes’ than anyone else, protested against the Communal Award with one of his most famous fasts. Privately, he suspected that `…the communal question [was] being brought deliberately to the forefront and magnified by the government because they did not intend to part with power’.[19] Publicly, he argued that the pernicious consequence would be a further exacerbation of the apartheid under which the `Depressed Classes’ had suffered for so long, when the important thing was for their right to be within the Hindu fold to be acknowledged by `caste’ Hindus.[20]

The Fundamental Rights in the 1950 Constitution establishing the equality of all citizens before the law evidently had the 1930-31 resolutions as their precursors; while Article17 – which specifically declared `untouchability’ to be `abolished’ and its practice `forbidden’ – was part of Gandhi’s legacy, placing those who had for centuries been denigrated and persecuted on exactly the same footing in the eyes of the laws of the Republic as their denigrators and persecutors. The subsequent clauses authorizing the state to discriminate in favour of `Scheduled Castes’, and allowing it to define by executive decree who was to be so called, were evidently the remnants of the Communal Award of 1932. Discrimination by the state was initially to last for a period of 10 years only. It has, however, been extended three times -for another 10 years on each occasion – and so continues to the present day. We shall examine a few of the consequences in Part III.‘A socialistic pattern of society’As for economic policy, while the original 1950 Constitution had ambiguously stated certain ends – such as that government was `to strive to promote the welfare of the people’ – it made no mention at all of any specific economic institutions, statist or liberal, which the new Republic was to nurture as means towards those ends. In spite of this omission, successive governments have explicitly avowed their espousal of` socialism’ as the means to the good and prosperous society.

For instance, a “socialistic pattern of society where the principal means of production are under social ownership or control” was declared to be a national objective at the ruling Congress Party’s convention in 1955; and, in 1976, the notorious 42nd Amendment purported to change the very description of the country in the preamble to the original Constitution from the sober `Sovereign, Democratic Republic’ to the awkward `Sovereign, Secular, Socialist Democratic Republic’. It is an open and important issue of constitutional practice whether a temporary majoritarian government can change the legal description of a republic so fundamentally that it necessarily begs every question now and in the future about the efficacy of socialism as the route to mass prosperity.[21]

Even so, `socialism’ is a vague and equivocal word, meaning different things to different people. Briefly, what happened in the Indian context seems to have been that the Nationalist Government explicitly took upon itself the responsibility of becoming the prime mover of the economic growth of the country. This was in addition to its other fundamental and urgent political responsibilities at the time, namely, to establish peace and civil order in the aftermath of a bloody partition, re-settle several million destitute refugees, integrate into the Republic the numerous principalities and fiefdoms run by the princes and potentates, re-draw provincial boundaries on a sensible linguistic criterion, and generally educate people about their rights and responsibilities as individual citizens in a new and democratic republic.

In a poor country which had just ended a long period of alien rule, it was understandable, if in advisable, that a nationalist government led by cultured, educated men among unlettered masses should take upon itself the responsibility for economic growth. Part of the nationalists’ critique of British rule had been precisely that it had worked to the considerable detriment of the Indian economy. And, certainly, whatever the exact calculation of the benefits and costs of the British presence in India, while there had been obvious benefits, there had also been obvious costs such as iniquitous taxes and overt racial discrimination in employment. [22]Thus, when the nationalists practically swore themselves to provide better government for the economy, it was certainly a very praiseworthy aim; 1947 would indeed be the year of India’s `tryst with destiny’.

Better government not necessarily more government
What the Nehru Government came to believe, however, was that better government for the economy necessarily meant more government activity in the economy. A similar nationalist government led by cultured, educated men among an unlettered public had chosen differently in 1776 at Philadelphia, but the times and circumstances were very different. The Indian nationalists, and most especially Prime Minister Nehru, had just witnessed what they took to be, on the one hand, the collapse of the market economy in the Great Depression and, on the other, the rapid growth to greatness of Bolshevik Russia. In his presidential address to the Congress in 1936, for instance, Nehru spoke of the immediate past in these terms: `Everywhere conflicts grew, and a great depression overwhelmed the world and there was a progressive deterioration, everywhere except in the wide flung Soviet territories of the USSR, where, in marked contrast with the rest of the world, astonishing progress was made in every direction . . .’ Thus, it seemed to him, there was`. . . no way of ending the poverty, the vast unemployment, the degradation, and the subjection of the Indian people except through Socialism”. Socialism meant, inter alia, ` the ending of private property, except in a restricted sense, and ttte repla emenr of the ,private profit system by a higher ideal of co-operative service. It means ultimately a change in our instincts and habits and desires. In short, it means a new civilisation, radically different from the present capitalist order. Some glimpse we can have of this new civilisation in the territories of the USSR. Much has happened there which has pained me greatly and with which I disagree, but I look upon that great and fascinating unfolding of anew order and a new civilisation as the most promising feature of our dismal age. If the future is full of hope it is largely because of Soviet Russia and what it has done, and I am convinced that, if some world catastrophe does not intervene, this new civilisation will spread to other lands and put an end to the wars and conflicts on which capitalism feeds’.[23]
Equally as certain and deep as his admiration for the liberal values of the West was Nehru’s evident misunderstanding of the causes and consequences of Stalin’s Russia. The political and economic history of India in the past 30 years cannot be understood without regard to her most powerful leader’s ambivalence about the nature of the political and economic good.
By the mid-1950s, many of India’s other prominent statesmen had died or retired from public life, and there was hardly a public figure of’ stature left (with the exception of Rajagopalachari) to challenge Nehru’s socialist vision of the country’s future. Moreover, men who were ostensibly `expert economists’, but whose writings revealed no knowledge of prices or markets or the concept of feasibility, were encouraged to endorse and embellish this vision, which they did without hesitation in the secure knowledge that they were shielded from critics by the intellectual patronage of a charismatic and elected leader.[24]
The choice between alternative models of mass economic prosperity must have seemed quite clear at the time. The cold fact did not, however, vanish that one of the oldest objective lessons of political economy has been that more government is not necessarily better government. It is to the consequences of ignoring this lesson that we now turn.

Part III: Practice
ECONOMIC POLICIES IN INDEPENDENT INDIA

INDIA TODAY is a bizarre maze of distorted incentives, which I (and no doubt others) have found very difficult to untangle and understand. I shall, however, list and discuss the most significant of them as methodically as I can.

(i) Industry
The Indian Government has declared a large `public sector’ in commerce and industry to be a national objective. Towards this end, it has therefore progressively acquired numerous enterprises, large and small, so that it now has either a full monopoly in an industry or is one of a few oligopolists. These industries range from banking, insurance, railways, airlines, cement, steel, chemicals, fertilisers and ship-building to making beer, soft drinks, telephones and wrist-watches. There are no explicit penalties for indefinite loss-making; indeed, bankrupt private enterprises have often been nationalised to serve politicians’ ends. And, certainly, there has been no general rule of marginal-cost pricing. In public utilities, like electricity generation and distribution or city buses and trams, prices appear to be well below marginal cost, leading to severe rationing and queueing. Sudden stoppages of electricity for hours at a time and monumental congestion on buses and trams have become endemic facts of life for millions of urban Indians.
At the same time, private industry in India has been made to face labyrinthine controls. The government has continually exhorted private firms to work in the `national interest’ – which means accepting the constraints of centralised planning. It has left no doubt that, while there is a `role’ for the min the growth of the economy, they exist at the sufferance of government and had better realise it, otherwise the dark forces of revolution which have so far been kept at bay will inevitably sweep them away altogether, as happened in Russia and China.
The constraints imposed on the operation of a private business are legion, and would make a businessman from the West or Far East reach for a psychiatrist or a pistol. An entrepreneur may not enter numerous industries without government approval of the `technical’ viability of his project; once it is approved, he cannot find credit except from a government bank; and he cannot buy raw materials and machinery of the highest quality at the lowest price since, if they are produced in India, he will be denied a licence to import better and/or cheaper foreign substitutes. The onus is on him to satisfy the government that no production occurs within India of the input he requires; only then will an import licence conceivably be granted, subject to periodic review by the government. He may be compelled to export a specified proportion of his output as a condition for the renewal of his import licence, which therefore places him at a disadvantage with foreign buyers who, of course, are aware of this restraint. He may be unable to compete internationally because the rupee is priced above its likely equilibrium and some of the inputs he uses are high-cost, low-quality domestic substitutes. As a result, he may be compelled practically to dump his output abroad at whatever price it will fetch.

The entrepreneur’s factory may be subject to random cuts in electricity for hours at a time. He may require government approval before he can increase his fixed capacity, modernise his plant, change a product-line, or even change the number of labour shifts. He may face minimum-wage and stringent unfair dismissal laws on the one hand, and price controls on the other. If he fails to meet credit obligations to the nationalised banks, he may be penalised by the appointment of one or more government directors to his board – a form of `creeping’ nationalisation. Further, he may be subjected to a constant threat of full nationalisation as and when the government decides that his industry should be in the public sector in the interests of national planning.[25]

The consequence of all these controls has been a monumental distortion of incentives away from encouraging private firms to try to attract customers by improving technology and quality or reducing prices towards encouraging them to concentrate on `rent-seeking’, in the term made familiar by Professors Gordon Tullock and James Buchanan.[26]

As Anne Krueger says in her excellent study of the automobile ancillary industry, the very notion of entrepreneurial efficiency changes in such circumstances: `Under conditions in India, the most important problem confronting entrepreneurs is that of assuring that production will continue. The combined effects of import licensing and investment licensing give virtually every firm a monopoly or quasi-monopoly position. The entrepreneur who is most successful in getting licences of greater value and/or in getting licences more quickly than his fellow producers will have higher profits. `The producer who does not compete successfully for licences cannot produce at all, no matter how skilled he is in achieving engineering efficiency, unless he enters the “open market” and pays a premium to the successful licence applicant for some materials . . . Successful entrepreneurs are therefore those who are best at obtaining the greatest number of licences most expeditiously . . .’ [27]

Moreover, firms which are low-cost and efficient (in the free market sense) and which are successful at rent-seeking as high-cost, inefficient firms may still not be able to compete the latter out of business because government will not usually allow a particular firm to expand – regardless of its efficiency – if there is excess capacity in the industry of which it is a part. High-cost firms can thereby rationally count on staying in business simply by maintaining significant excess capacity.

(ii) Foreign trade
The Government of India has always claimed that foreign exchange is a `scarce’ resource which must be rationed by fiat in the national interest. The total foreign-exchange revenue (at an exchange rate which was fixed until 1971 and has since been on a managed `peg’) has been allocated in the following order of priorities: first, to meet foreign debt repayments and government expenditures in the conduct of foreign policy, such as the maintenance of embassies (G1); secondly, to pay for imports of defence equipment, food, fertilisers and petroleum (G2); thirdly, to meet ear-marked payments for the imported inputs of public sector industries so that they may achieve projected production targets (G3); fourthly, to pay for the imported inputs of private sector firms which are
successful in obtaining import licences (P1); and, lastly, to satisfy the demands of the public at large for purposes such as travel abroad (P2).
Foreign exchange is `scarce’ in India, or elsewhere, in precisely the same sense that rice or petrol or cloth is scarce. Just as there exists some positive price for rice, petrol or cloth which, at any moment, will match total supplies with total demands, so there exists some positive price for rupees relative to dollars which, at any moment, will match the transaction and asset demands of Indians for dollars with the transaction and asset demands of foreigners for rupees. Underlying that market-clearing price would be (a) the demands of Indians for foreign goods whose f.o.b. prices were lower than those of domestic substitutes, and, similarly, the demands of foreigners for goods in which India has had a comparative advantage; and (b) the expectations of Indians and foreigners about the future purchasing power of the rupee relative to the dollar, using as a proxy, say, the difference between interest rates in India and abroad.

A free market in foreign exchange would first have encouraged India’s traditional exports, like jute manufactures and textiles, and then (if the positive theory of international trade is broadly correct)progressively encouraged the export of other non traditional goods which used India’s relatively inexpensive labour relatively intensively and thereby enabled Indian entrepreneurs to compete successfully in foreign markets. At the same time, capital flows into and out of India would have given the monetary authorities an incentive to keep domestic interest rates in line with the real opportunity cost of forgoing consumption in favour of savings.

Thus, the case against a free market in foreign exchange has always been, to say the least, far from obvious.[28] But even if, for the sake of argument, we accept the presumed superiority of rationing, the elementary theory of optimisation which underlies the so-called theory of `planning’ dictates that the government should allocate dollars between alternative uses such that the marginal dollar yields the same increase in social utility in any use. The Indian Government, however, appears to have allocated foreign exchange simply on the basis of giving a higher priority to its own foreign expenditures (categories Gl, G2 and G3) than to private foreign expenditures (categories Pl and P2). That is to say, regardless of how much social utility might have been derived from a particular increase in private-sector imports, it would not be considered until after the government had met all its own expenditures abroad.[29]
Jagdish Bhagwati and T. N. Srinivasan put it as follows : `The allocation of foreign exchange among alternative claimants and users in a direct control system . . .would presumably be with reference to a well-defined set of principles and criteria based on a system of priorities. In point of fact, however, there seem to have been few such criteria, if any, followed in practice.’[30]
With respect to imported inputs for private- and public-sector industries, a rule of `essentiality’ (that is, the input must be technically `essential’ to the production process) and a rule of `indigenous availability’(that is, there must be absolutely no domestically-produced physical substitutes, regardless of cost and quality)seem to have been followed. But, as Bhagwati and Srinivasan report, `. . . the sheer weight of numbers made any meaningful listing of priorities extremely difficult. The problem was Orwellian: all industries had priority and how was each sponsoring authority to argue that some industries had more priority than others? It is not surprising, therefore, that the agencies involved in determining allocations by industry fell back on vague notions of “fairness”, implying pro rata allocations with reference to capacity installed or employment, or shares defined by past import allocations or similar rules of thumb’. [31]

Clearly, in abjuring the free market and claiming a monopoly over foreign-exchange transactions, government planners have accepted certain premises as unquestionable: (a) that government sponsored industrialisation is the best means to mass prosperity; (b) that a policy of indefinite import-substitution is the best means to industrialisation; and (c) that such a policy requires all foreign expenditures by government to take precedence over all private foreign expenditures. The trade and foreign-exchange policies pursued cannot be understood except by reference to domestic economic policies and, in particular, to the view held about the proper functions of government in and out of the market-place.

In addition to a plethora of controls, tariffs and outright bans on imports, there have been erratic policies, subsidising the export of `new’, non-traditional manufactures like engineering goods, and taxing- and even banning – the export of goods in which India has traditionally enjoyed a comparative advantage.[32]

Moreover, the rupee has been continuously over-valued. From 1949 to 1959, the official exchange rate of Rs. 4.76 to the US dollar was, on average, 12..3 percent above the black-market rate, a figure which rose to 61 per cent between 1960 and 1965. From 1966 to 1970, the devalued official rate of Rs. 7.50 to the dollar was above the black-market rate by an average of 47.6 per cent, while from 1971 onwards the managed-peg rate has been above the black-market rate by an average of 24.3 per cent.[33]

Simple economics suggests that a free-market equilibrium rate would be somewhere between the black-market and official rates. An official exchange rate for the rupee fixed above that warranted by underlying relative demands for Indian and foreign goods, as well as by relative degrees of confidence in the rupee and the dollar, subsidises imports at the expense of exports. By discriminating in favour of its own foreign expenditures and against those of the private sector, the government has been the principal beneficiary of an over-valued rupee. If capital-intensive goods are the main imports and labour-intensive ones the main exports, an over-valued rupee further distorts incentives so as to favour the use of capital-intensive production processes over labour intensive ones – in a country with a demonstrable abundance of relatively inexpensive labour!
With an eye to India, Krueger has argued the general issue in these terms:`Subsidies can make any industry an export industry, even one that would not produce at all in an efficient allocation. Similarly, taxes can be levied on an industry that has comparative advantage which will penalize it enough to render domestic production entirely unprofitable. When taxes and subsidies are used, therefore, it is possible not only to distort the structure of production, but to distort it so much that the “wrong” commodities are exported.”[34]

The Indian Government’s planners have had the idea of forcibly effecting a reversal in the comparative advantage of the country, as if by magic overnight. The hope might have been that a forced pace of industrialisation would somehow allow economies of scale to be reaped and thus soon make Indian industrial goods competitive enough in international markets to be the country’s principal source of foreign exchange, displacing traditional manufactures like jute and textiles. In practice, however, as the evidence given by Bela Balassa
and other economists demonstrates, such a policy has not succeeded to date and is most unlikely ever to do so.
India’s import bill has risen continuously, most drastically after the 1973-74 quadrupling of petroleum prices; non-traditional manufactures have hardly been able to compete successfully in foreign markets; and the traditional exports of jute and textiles have suffered very severe setbacks. Balassa contrasts the consequences of the freer, outward-looking trade policies of South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan with those of the inward-looking, controlled regime of India as part of a study of 11 countries(including Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Chile, Israel and Yugoslavia) which, along with Hong Kong, account for most of the manufactured exports of developing countries. India’s share of the total manufactured exports of these countries has fallen steadily from 65.4 per cent in 1953 to 50.7 per cent in1960, to 31.2 per
cent in 1966 and to a mere 10.3 per cent in 1973. The proportion exported of India’s total manufactured output fell from 9.7 per cent in 1960 to 9.4 per cent in 1966 and to 8.6 per cent in1973. In contrast, during the same two periods, the proportion of manufactured output exported rose from1 to 14 to 41 per cent in South Korea, from 11 to 20 to 43 per cent in Singapore, and from 9 to 19 to 50 per cent in Taiwan.[35]
Balassa cogently argues that the adverse effects of a sudden change in external factors, such as the quadrupling of petroleum prices in 1973-74 or the 1974-75 Western recession, were absorbed much more easily by developing countries with large foreign-trade sectors than by those like India with relatively small ones: `Outward orientation is associated with high export and import shares that permit reduction in non-essential imports without serious adverse effects on the functioning of the economy. By contrast, continued inward orientation involves limiting imports to an unavoidable minimum, so that any further reduction will impose a considerable cost in terms of growth. Furthermore, the greater flexibility of the national economies of countries pursuing an outward-oriented strategy, under which firms learn to live with foreign competition, makes it possible to change the product composition of exports in response to changes in world market conditions, whereas inward orientation entails establishing a more rigid economic structure.’[36]
In other words, if imports are both high in total value and diverse in composition, a rise in the relative price of a particular import for which home demand is relatively inelastic (like petroleum and its products) can be accommodated by a substitution of expenditure towards it and away from inessential imports for which demand is relatively elastic. A similar argument had typically been advanced by advocates of import-substitution when they maintained that the exports of a small country should be diverse and not concentrated on only a few goods since a decline in world prices would otherwise lead to serious falls in export revenues. This suggests that both critics and advocates of import substitution might agree that, for a country which is a price-taker in world markets, the encouragement of a large foreign-trade sector is a way of diversifying the risk of adverse effects from changes in world prices. The question remains as to whether the positive theory of trade is correct in saying that the encouragement of comparative advantage is superior to import-substitution as a means of achieving a large foreign sector. From the contrasting experiences of, say, South Korea on the one hand and India on the other, the answer seems overwhelmingly to be that it is.

(iii) Agriculture
The Indian Government has instituted a multiple-pricing system for the major food-grains, especially rice and wheat. Farmers are compelled to sell a specified fraction of their output to the government, at a price fixed by the government which is significantly lower than that warranted by underlying supply and demand conditions. Farmers may sell the remainder of their output freely. The quantities the government acquires in this way, plus any it imports (imports being subsidised by the over-valuation of the exchange rate), are sold by ration at lower than free-market prices in the so-called `fair-price’ shops – which happen to be mainly in urban areas. Urban consumers may purchase part of their requirements from such shops and the remainder on the open market at higher prices. Astute middle-class urban housewives know that rationed grain is often of poorer quality than that sold on the open market. Accordingly, the former often constitutes part of the wages of the domestic servants of the urban household, while the family consumes the latter. Insofar as this is true, it suggests that farmers distinguish quality much better than do government officials, and that they use this advantage somewhat to partition their output into low- and high-quality, selling the first under compulsion to the government and the second on the open market.
While such is the general food policy of India, the compulsory procurement of grains and their distribution to the ration-shops is implemented by individual State governments and not by the Union Government. There have usually been numerous restrictions on inter-State movements of grain, so the States do not form a full customs union; instead, the Union Government tries to be a central clearing-house, matching the desired imports of one State with the desired exports of another.[37]

Economic effects of ban on futures contracts
Furthermore, futures contracts in grains have been banned by law, in the belief that futures trading is conducive to speculation and that speculation is undesirable. A futures contract in grain consists simply of a promise by a seller to deliver an amount of grain to a buyer at some specified date in the future in return for payment at a price agreed today. The seller’s incentive to enter into the contract is the guarantee of a certain sale, and the availability of funds now; the buyer’s incentive is the guarantee of a certain price for future deliveries. The contract may be entered into because buyer and seller have different expectations about what the spot price will be in the future. The buyer minimises his expected costs and the seller maximises his expected revenues; both are able to balance their budgets inter-temporally. Even if they have the same expectations about future spot prices, buyer and seller may still find it mutually profitable to enter into a futures contract as a way of insuring against risk. Forbidding such contracts by decree thus forces more risk onto both buyer and seller than they would normally be prepared to carry, and also induces them to balance their accounts in each period rather than it inter-temporally. Alternative kinds of credit markets become it relatively more lucrative, with the potential seller and buyer of futures wheat respectively borrowing and lending more than they would otherwise have done.[38]
The government has also expressed its determination to keep prices in ration-shops low. It has accordingly stockpiled large inventories of grain, apparently regardless of the costs of storage and spoilage or the alternative of holding larger foreign-exchange reserves to permit increased imports when necessary.

The ostensible, declared objective of all such policies has been to ensure that the poor do not suffer severe adverse income effects from sudden rises in the price of food resulting (it has been thought) from the contingencies of rainfall and the actions of speculative traders. It is, however, an open secret that the policies have really been a means of (a) taxing farmers, who pay a smaller percentage of their income in direct and indirect taxes than do urban dwellers, and (b) subsidising urban consumers, who broadly comprise the industrial working class and the middle in classes.
At the same time, however, the government and its advisers — after the considerable hesitation recorded by David Hopper [39]- have also accepted that the best long-run prospects for increasing agricultural productivity lie in modernising traditional farming techniques. Given the outstanding results of the Green Revolution in wheat, they could hardly have arrived at any other conclusion. The problem from the government’s point of view has been, as a sympathetic economist puts it “…how to procure a sufficient quantity of food grains at reasonable prices without jeopardising the farmers’ incentives to produce more”.[40]

Thus, while taxing farmers de facto on their output, on the one hand, the government has tried, on the other, to promote the use of modern inputs by subsidizing them both directly and through low-interest loans from the banks for such investment.
Distortions of incentives in agriculture
The distortions of efficient incentives caused by such policies are not difficult to see. First, the low output prices of wheat and rice have, in effect, been discriminatory taxes on wheat. As Edward Schuh remarks, these discourage the production of `. . . the very crops that policy-makers believe the vulnerable groups should have greater access to . . .’[41]

Vasant Sukhatme and Theodore Schultz have argued that, even between wheat and rice, there has been severe discrimination in favour of the former. At the official over-valued exchange rate, the price of domestic wheat has been significantly higher than imported, while at open-market rates for the rupee, the domestic price approximated the import price. For rice, however, the domestic price has been consistently below the import price. Sukhatme estimated that the dead weight loss in welfare from the under pricing of rice amounted to 8.5 per cent of total agricultural income in 1967-68 and to 2.2 per cent in 1970-71. He also calculated effective rates of protection, which were strongly negative for rice whether at official or open-market exchange rates and positive for wheat at the official exchange rate. Both he and Schultz conclude that the discrimination against rice has been a major factor in explaining the absence of a Green Revolution in rice on the scale of that in wheat.[42]
Secondly, the main beneficiaries of government subsidies for modern inputs have evidently been not the many small farmers but the fewer relatively large ones. As Gilbert Brown reports :`Large-scale farmers buy most subsidised inputs. Poorer farmers usually lack the money to buy adequate amounts of fertiliser and pesticides, and are commonly unable to get credit except at near-prohibitive rates of often 60% to 100% per year. Even in countries with subsidised bank credit for agriculture, rich farmers get most of the credit because of legal or administrative restrictions and/ or through open or disguised bribery. Credit and subsidy programmes for tractors, tube wells and other fixed investments also go mostly to the largest and richest farmers . . .Water is also a subsidised input . . . The farmers who receive this subsidised water generally have substantially higher incomes (because of the water) than farmers without access to public irrigation. Thus, claims that water should be subsidised to help small farmers misses the point that most farmers with irrigation have higher incomes than those who do not.’[43]
Brown argues that subsidies for inputs have been made necessary only to offset the forced depression of output prices. Moreover, the social benefit from subsidising inputs is limited to when the input is first introduced: ‘Once the benefits and technique of using the input are widely known, however, the continuation of such subsidies serves largely to increase the benefit-cost ratio of using the input . . .’.
Whether it is better to continue with artificially low input and output prices or to adjust towards a free market in both must take into account that the subsidies have encouraged more capital-intensity in production, and also that the `. . . low prices of certain inputs, particularly water, are often associated with widespread waste and inefficient use of the resource’.[44]
Thirdly, the farmer who is too small to find investment in storage facilities profitable may also consider it not worth his while to hold any of his output for sale on the open market. He will then sell it all to the government – at a below-market price.
A general conclusion would seem to be that, if the combined effect of input subsidies and forced grain sales to government has been a net subsidy to agriculture, then it has been a progressive subsidy; whereas if the combined effect has been a net tax on agriculture, then it has been a regressive tax. The Marxists may be quite right to protest that what gains there have been in agriculture have accrued to the relatively larger farmers, while smaller peasants and farmers are becoming landless labourers in growing numbers as a result of bankruptcy (that is, there has been increasing `rural proletarianisation’, to use the Marxists’ picturesque phrase). But if this is true, the cause can be traced unambiguously to the Indian Government’s belief – vociferously shared by the Marxists – that the way towards the declared objective of helping the poor is by extensive interference in the price system. Besides, the industrial working class demonstrably benefits from low food prices, so the honest Marxist must face up to being torn by divided loyalties between the rural and the urban proletariats.

Srinivasan put it as follows in a 1974 survey article :`The public distribution system with respect to foodgrains . . . operated to the benefit of all those living in metropolitan cities and other large urban concentrations while all others, including rich and poor in relatively small urban and almost all rural areas, did not benefit at all. When one recalls that the rural population includes the most abject among the poor, namely landless workers, the inequity of the system becomes glaring. And in urban areas, the existence of the system and the fact that the ration is often inadequate provides incentives for a household to falsify the data on its size and age composition given to the rationing authorities, as well as to create bogus or ghost ration-cards, not to speak of the corruption of the personnel manning the rationing administration.’[45]

The history of the extensive control of agriculture – which has included a partial government monopsony, forcibly-depressed output prices, inter-State restrictions on grain movements, and urban ration-shops – can be traced to the last years of British rule, as an attempt to bolster the popularity of the imperial regime. [46] The continuation and reinforcement of statism in agriculture in independent India has evidently rested on certain premises, namely, that the private market would be grossly inefficient and would be dominated by a few traders continually reaping large speculative profits, with both the small farmer and the ordinary consumer suffering in consequence.

Uma Lele’s fine study of the private grain trade, however, shows the real picture to be quite different. She found that the trade was highly competitive, that individual traders were rational agents (given the constraints of technology and government policy), that location price differences closely reflected transport costs, and that temporal price differences closely reflected storage costs. She argued that, while there was considerable scope for government activity, it should be in the form, not of interfering in the competitive market, but rather of encouraging the market to work – by, for example, disseminating relevant information such as crop forecasts, standardising weights and measures, constructing or improving roads and encouraging efficiency in the market for the transport of grain, etc.[47]

The evident neglect of such findings as these, and the continued application of policies inimical to competition and the free market, suggest that successive governments of independent India have been hardly more concerned for the rural poor – whether as farmer or consumer – and hardly less concerned with bolstering their popularity in the urban areas than were the British.

(iv) Employment
An obvious consequence of the economic policies described above has been the distortion of the individual citizen’s calculation of the expected benefits and costs of living and working in urban areas compared with the rural countryside. The forced depression of output prices in agriculture and the plethora of foreign-trade policies which discriminate against agriculture certainly seem to have artificially depressed the expected incomes of farmers. At the same time, a large `public sector’ in industry, plus the array of foreign-trade policies which have protected private industry, plus the indirect subsidisation of food sold in urban ration-shops certainly seem to have artificially raised expected urban incomes. Predictably, the reaction has been a vast and continuing net migration from the villages to the towns and cities, even after adjusting for the seasonal nature of agriculture. This drift has been the subject of much inquiry and discussion by development economists.[48] I propose to set it aside and examine instead a different aspect of employment policy which has not received nearly as much attention, namely, the consequences of putting into effect the clauses in the 1950 Indian Constitution mentioned above which authorised discrimination in employment and public education in favour of the `Scheduled’ castes and tribes, as well as other policies which discriminate on grounds of ethnic origin.

The consequences have been similar in several respects to those in America of `affirmative action’ towards so-called `racial minorities’, and it will be useful to draw out the analogy a little. As Thomas Sowell has cogently argued in recent years, the racial composition of contemporary American society is a complex mosaic, and no-one can say with certainty how it has come to be what it is today. In such circumstances, for the government to try to isolate a single contingent characteristic like `race’, partition society on the basis of census data according to this characteristic, and then construct public policies accordingly, is to introduce an enormous arbitrariness into economic life. By merely defining a group by reference to a single contingent characteristic, which all its members seem to possess, the intrinsic complexity of the individual person is lost or overlooked. Two members of the same race may be very different from each other in every relevant characteristic (income, education, political preference, and so on), and indeed resemble members of other races more closely in them. A policy which introduces a citizen’s race as a relevant factor in the assignment of jobs or college places partitions the citizenry into vague groups : members of groups who are very different from members of other groups in characteristics other than race rarely competing with each other anyway, while the burden and beneficence of the state’s policies fall on members of groups who are not very different from members of other groups in characteristics other than race: `. . . costs are borne disproportionately by those members of the general population who meet those standards with the least margin and are therefore most likely to be the ones displaced to make room for minority applicants. Those who meet the standards by the widest margin are not directly affected – that is, pay no costs. They are hired, admitted or promoted as if blacks did not exist. People from families with the most general ability to pay also have the most ability to pay for the kind of education and training that makes such performance possible. The costs of special standards are paid by those who do not. Among the black population, those most likely to benefit from the lower standards are those closest to meeting the normal standards. It is essentially an implicit transfer of wealth among people least different in non-racial characteristics. For the white population it is a regressively graduated tax in kind, imposed on those who are rising but not on those already on top.’[49]
At the same time, there is, in effect, a progressively graduated subsidy for members of the `minority’ group in favour of those who are already closest to meeting the general standards. Those in the mainstream of each group are largely unaffected; it is at the margins of competition that the bitterness caused by such policies will be felt and will manifest itself. It would seem that the situation in India – where the racial mosaic is if anything more complex than in America – is somewhat analogous. In recent years there has been civil tension and violence in the streets as poor Muslims, `caste’ Hindus, Sikhs and others have protested at being edged out of jobs and promotions by equally poor, or wealthier, members of the `Scheduled Castes’. In March-April 1981, for instance, there was widespread civil tension and violence in Gujarat over the reservation of places in the State’s medical colleges. A quarter of these places were statutorily reserved for members of the `Scheduled Castes’, with any not taken up by qualified candidates from these groups accruing to them in the future, thereby rapidly excluding from general competition as many as half the total number of places.[50]

The cruel paradox is that, while the position of many members (perhaps the vast majority) of the `Scheduled Castes’ vis-à-vis `caste’ Hindus remains one of degradation and persecution – quite regardless of the constitutional guarantees of equality in the eyes of the law – the relatively few who have succeeded in taking advantage of the discriminatory statutes have aroused the indignation of those who have not -causing even more animosity towards the `Scheduled Castes’ in general. One commentator observes the emergence of a `new elite’ among the `Scheduled Castes’ which `ceases to identify with its caste brethren’; while, at the same time, the law on equality `is so widely flouted precisely because the Scheduled Castes have not the means or courage to seek its protection . . .’ He concludes :`Contrived gestures such as are now popular will either not benefit [the Scheduled Castes] . . . or will do so only by further lowering already deplorable academic and administrative standards’. [51]
Moreover, when all government posts are advertised with a caveat that 10 or 15 per cent of themare reserved for members of the `Scheduled Castes’ and `Scheduled Tribes’, there is a considerable incentive for people to persuade Parliament to declare them as being such. And that also has happened. Discrimination in employment on the ground of caste has not been the only kind of discrimination practised by the Indian state. In what may be the most thorough study currently available on the origins, consequences and legal history of official discrimination in India, Weiner, Katzenstein and Rao have described the plethora of policies pursued by the central and state governments which have used not caste but ethnic origin as a criterion for public employment (with the private sector also often being `encouraged’ to follow suit) :`Preferences are given to those who belong to the “local” community, with “local” understood as referring to the numerically dominant linguistic group in the locality.’ [52] The authors conclude that what is emerging in India is`. . . a government-regulated labour market in which various ethnic groups are given a reserved share of that market. Competition for employment is thus not among all Indians, but within specified linguistic, caste, and tribal groups.`. . . various ethnic groups, therefore, fight politically for a share of that labour market. The major political struggles are often over who should get reservations, how the boundaries of the ethnic groups should be defined, and how large their share should be. There are also political struggles over whether there should be reservations in both education and employment, in private as well as in public employment, and in promotions as well as hiring. The preferential policies themselves have thus stimulated various ethnic groups to assert their “rights” to reservations.’[53]

It is not difficult to understand the general economic argument against discrimination on grounds such as caste or ethnic origin. If a private employer indulges a personal preference to hire only people of an kind A when there are more able or better qualified candidates of other ethnic kinds B, C, D, . . . ,available, and if the product of his firm is subject to competition in the market from other enterprises which do not discriminate on criteria which are irrelevant to economic efficiency, we may confidently expect the discriminating employer’s product to become uncompetitive and his profits to fall. The best and most obvious example of this would be in the professional sports industry in the USA : a `whites-only’ basketball or football team would be immediately vanquished on the games-field into bankruptcy. If government pursues employment policies which discriminate according to economically irrational criteria such as caste or ethnic origin, or if it forces all private firms to do likewise, there will certainly be inefficiency resulting in a loss of real aggregate output in the economy. In the terms of modern economics, a vector of total outputs which would be feasible given the parameters of the economy, and which would leave everyone either better off or at least no worse off, would not be achieved. In sum, the consequence of direct and widespread government interference in the labour market in India appears to have been, not only a disregard for the principle of equality before the law for every citizen (in a nascent republic of immensely diverse peoples), but also a loss of real output and an enormous `politicisation’ of economic life whereby individual success becomes increasingly tied to political power and increasingly removed from personal merit, enterprise and effort. In addition, the composition of occupations in the economy has been indirectly distorted by the set of industrial, agricultural and foreign-trade policies pursued by successive governments.

6. THE MALFUNCTIONING OF GOVERNMENT

IT MIGHT be thought that a large and flabby `public sector’ in industry and commerce, labyrinthine controls on private industry, a government monopoly of foreign-exchange dealings, the overvaluation of the currency, indefinite import-substitution, forcibly depressed output and input prices in agriculture, enormous politicization of the labour market, disregard for equality before the law, and distortion of the composition of occupations would constitute a sufficient catalogue of symptoms of grave illness in the political economy of a nation. Sadly, however, there are in modern India other symptoms too which I can mention only briefly here.
An opinion frequently encountered among urban Indians (as well as among the majority of Western development economists) is that government control over the size of the population is a necessary condition for economic development, and indeed that it is the failure of government to do this that has dissipated the economic growth that would otherwise have resulted from the economic policies pursued. The urban Indian witnesses the hovels and shanty-towns inhabited by migrant families from the countryside attracted by the policies discussed previously, and he experiences the resulting congestion. So does the Western development economist when he ventures out of his hotel into the city streets. Very often, that is his only personal experience of the legendary `poor masses’ of India. It is understandable that such princely discomfiture should lead him to the opinion that the poor are mindless in their breeding habits and that they must be persuaded, bullied or compelled to change. If this opinion were true, it would seem to point to a neat and simple solution to many of the woes of poor countries, and India in particular. But if the opinion is false and yet widely believed, it would cause governments to be, as it were, barking up the wrong tree.
It is, however, far from established, and certainly not at all obvious, that demographic control is either necessary or desirable in India or elsewhere. In the first place, when the rate of infant mortality is known and experienced by rural people to be high, there will be mare births than there would have been otherwise. Secondly, it is perfectly clear that children are an investment good in traditional societies such as those of rural India. Even young children are a source of family income, either directly by working outside the home or indirectly by working at domestic chores and thereby releasing adult members of the family for outside work. For a child to be absent from primary school or to drop out within a few years is not necessarily truancy; it may be the outcome of a rational economic calculation about where his time may be better spent towards increasing the household’s income. Furthermore, in traditional societies adult children are the principal source of support for elderly and retired parents.
To know of the existence of artificial measures of contraception certainly enlarges the alternatives open to a couple. Assuming that such knowledge is not in itself a cause of unhappiness (as it can be if there are conflicting religious commitments), a couple may certainly be better off with that knowledge because of their ability to control the number and timing of their children. The couple might also have fewer children – though there is no necessary or causal connection between a knowledge of contraception and the number of children born to a couple. Rational calculation may produce the same number of children as the caprice of nature, the implication being that in general there is no causal connection between the availability of contraceptives and the rate of growth of the population. The value of a public policy which encourages the use of artificial contraception is not so much that it reduces the number of births as that it may allow couples more control over their own lives. Whether or not artificial contraception should be publicly subsidised is quite another question.
The Indian Government has expended considerable resources in propagating and subsidizing artificial birth control. The results appear to have been, at best, indifferent (coupled as birth control has been with indirect incentives for large families and, at worst, cruel – as when frenetic zeal spilled over into demands for, and the implementation of, compulsory sterilisation. For this author, however, the important consideration would seem to be not so much the exact costs and benefits of the demographic policies pursued as the critical acknowledgement that they have little or nothing to do with the fundamental causes of mass economic development.[54]
It remains a stark paradox that, with a general literacy rate of perhaps 30 per cent [NB: In 2007, this has grown to 73% for males and 48% for females] India still produces the third largest absolute number of science and engineering graduates in the world. This reflects the lopsidedness of the educational system, continued from British times, in which higher education is enormously subsidised relative to primary education. In addition, entry into the civil services requires a college or university education, which in turn requires a good private secondary school education, which in turn requires a good preparatory school education. Strenuously competing to enter prep. school, with the help of outside tutoring, is the unhappy fate of many a five- or six-year-old in the towns and cities, followed by strenuous competition in secondary school, college and university, and finally at the doorstep of government (or a foreign university).
A job in government – any job in government – has carried prestige since Mughal times. In addition to the prestige and the obvious benefits of tenure where ether `decent’ jobs are scarce, there has been in recent times the inner satisfaction from a belief that a person can truly do his best for his country only by being in government. Tens of thousands of youths spend significant personal resources (such as whole years in cramming schools) to compete for a few annual openings in government. It is only to be expected that the competent, ambitious, patriotic youth who succeeds will mature into a respected mandarin with an unshakeable conviction in the good his government has done for the masses, and in the further good yet in prospect.
Failure to anticipate monsoon damage and disarray of the judicial system
The most serious examples of the malfunctioning of civil government in India are probably the failure to take feasible public precautions against the monsoons and the disarray of the judicial system. Official estimates, for instance, of the damage caused by flooding to homes, crops and public utilities in a few weeks of July-August 1981 alone amounted to over Rs 1 billion, with 10.8 million people `affected’, 35,000 head of cattle lost, and 195,000 homes damaged. The full magnitude of the devastation which annually visits vast areas can be understood perhaps only by those in rural India, although the towns and cities also regularly suffer considerable chaos. [55] [NB 2007: Monsoon prediction appears far better today than it was when these words were written.]
As for the disarray of the judicial system, The Statesman lamented in July 1980:`The simplest matter takes an inordinate amount of time, remedies seldom being available to those without means or influence. Of the more than 16,000 cases pending in the Supreme Court, about 5,000 were introduced more than five years ago; while nearly 16,000 of the backlog of more than 600,000 cases in our high courts have been hanging fire for over a decade. Allahabad is the worst offender but there are about 75,000 uncleared cases in the Calcutta High Court in addition to well over a million in West Bengal’s lower courts.”[56] Such a state of affairs has been caused not only by lazy and corrupt policemen, court clerks and lawyers, but also by the paucity of judges and magistrates. In addition, however,`. . . a vast volume of laws provokes endless litigation as much because of poor drafting which leads to disputes over interpretation as because they appear to violate particular rights and privileges. Land legislation offers an example of radical zeal running away with legal good sense, giving rise to thousands of suits against the Government . . .’ [57] When governments determinedly do what they need not or should not do, it may be expected that they will fail to do what civil government positively should be doing. In a sentence, that has been the tragedy of modern India.

Part IV : Reform
A LIBERAL AGENDA

IT WILL by now have become evident to the reader from the descriptions and arguments given above that, in the judgement of the present author, only a set of radical changes in policy can put the Indian economy on a path to higher mass prosperity within a free and healthy body politic. I shall therefore put forward a tentative manifesto for reform, adding some predictions about which classes of citizens would be most likely to support or oppose a particular proposal. The scope and intention of such a manifesto should be made clear at the outset. As Aristotle taught, a set of actions which are the means towards certain ends may themselves be the ends towards which other prior means have to be taken.[58]
The ultimate ends of economic advice in India are to seek to bring about mass prosperity under conditions of individual freedom. The proposals I which follow are to be construed as means towards those ultimate ends. But they also constitute a set of intermediate ends, and their implementation would require further judgement about the best means towards achieving them. In economic policy, for instance, a firm but gradual phasing-in over a period of three or four years may be the best way to minimise the hardships entailed by the adjustment. For reasons which will become clear, however, I shall not here try to answer the question as to how the proposals might best be implemented.

(a) Effects of foreign policy on the domestic economy
It will be useful to begin with a short and very incomplete consideration of foreign policy insofar as it may bear upon domestic economic policies. It is a settled fact of international politics that, while there is no obvious connection between a nation’s economic and political institutions and the choice of strategic allies it faces, people’s subjective perceptions and opinions of the social arrangements in a foreign country can be deeply influenced by whether that country is seen as a potential ally or adversary. A related and equally settled fact is that war, or the fear of war, can make for the most incongruous of bed-fellows. In contemporary India, it is quite evident that the antipathy and pessimism towards market institutions found among the urban public, and the sympathy and optimism to be found for collectivist or statist ones, has been caused to a very significant extent by the perception that the United States is relatively hostile towards India while the Soviet Union is relatively friendly. This was not always so. The official affection between the United States and India in the early years of the Republic was grounded in sincerity and goodwill. The roots of its demise are probably to be found in the split between the Soviet Union and China in the late 1950s which, in a short period of time, made the latter a valuable strategically for the United States against the former. By the early 1970s, the spectre of a joint military threat to India from a totalitarian China and a militarist Pakistan – and especially a threat which it was perceived democratic America would do little or nothing to thwart – made it prudent for democratic India to become the virtual ally of totalitarian Russia.
Such a configuration on the international chess-board need not have been detrimental to India’s economic development. It is possible to imagine a liberal state allied to a totalitarian one for strategic reasons, yet maintaining liberal economic policies domestically and internationally. In practice[58], however, the extent of `economic collaboration’, bilateral trading arrangements, `joint ventures’, barter agreements, `cultural exchanges’, and the like into which the Indian Government has entered with the Soviet bloc, appears significantly to exceed what it has achieved with the Western powers. In particular, Soviet arms have in recent years been purchased more often and then manufactured under licence. This too need not have been economically detrimental if the Soviet products had in practice been competitive on international markets in terms of price and quality. As is common knowledge, however, this is often not so. It therefore appears that part of the price India has had to pay for the strategic support of the Soviet Union has been the foisting on her of low-quality, high-priced Soviet goods, whether arms or steel mills or technical know-how. At the same time, for reasons which are partly historical and partly related to these considerations, direct foreign investment by private Western firms has been treated with, at best, coolness and, at worst, open hostility.

A change in India’s foreign policy
If the economic liberalisation that will be proposed here for India is to be effective, a truly independent yet prudent foreign policy may be required to accompany it. A change in the present strategic configuration – in which the United States is perceived in India to be virtually the ally of both China and Pakistan, while India is perceived in the United States to be virtually the ally of the Soviet Union – is unlikely until and unless the United States finds it in her best interests in the region to distance herself from China and Pakistan, which is unlikely to happen without a rapprochement between the Soviet Union and China. A drastic alternative way for India to reduce her dependence upon the Soviet Union would be the kind of divorce Egypt effected some years ago, followed by an alliance with the Western powers. This might, however, undermine once more the independence of foreign policy and be perceived in India as a move from the devil to the deep sea. The prudent remaining alternative would appear to be an earnest and vigorous pursuit of serious no-war pacts with Pakistan and China, combined with an appropriately small independent nuclear deterrent. It seems to the author that the reasons which commend this course are closely analogous to those offered by the present American and British governments for pursuing serious no-war negotiations with the Soviet bloc whilst simultaneously improving the Western nuclear deterrent.
(b) Liberalisation of foreign trade
Not only would the truly independent foreign policy proposed in the preceding paragraph allow India to distance herself from the Soviet Union; it would probably also prompt the Western powers to end the intergovernmental transfers which go by the name of `foreign aid’. For reasons that Peter Bauer has emphasised over many years, an end to such transfers might be a boon in disguise for India.[59] In particular, it would require the government to seek to balance the foreign-exchange accounts without becoming obligated to the Western powers, and this in turn would require a major economic transformation from a closed and protectionist economy to an open one which harnessed India’s comparative advantages.
An initial liberalisation of foreign trade, involving a transition from quotas to tariffs, would probably be supported by private industry as a whole. It would, however, be opposed by incumbent politicians and government officials since it would dissipate the rents they receive under the closed regime. A subsequent reduction in tariffs, a withdrawal of export subsidies, and the free floating of the rupee would be opposed by those private firms (and their labour unions) which would be uncompetitive internationally – probably those in `non-traditional’ industries. The measures would, however, be supported by ordinary consumers, by private firms in traditional industries like jute manufactures and textiles, and particularly by farmers.
Once private industry became subject to the strict discipline of international competition again, there would be no reason whatsoever for government-imposed internal controls which were not conducive to free and fair competition among firms for the consumer’s rupee. The repeal of the plethora of licensing policies would dissipate the large rents attached to the controls under the present regime. Since these rents are paid by private industry and received, directly or indirectly, by incumbent politicians and government officials, the former could be expected to welcome repeal and the latter to oppose it vigorously.

(c) Privatisation of `public-sector’ industries
At the same time, for the so-called `public-sector’ industries to face international competition, when they are currently monopolists or oligopolists, would demand such an improvement in economic discipline as probably to require the shares of most of them to be sold on the open market, with marginal-cost pricing imposed on the remainder. There is no economic reason why the Government of India shouldbe engaged in commercial or merchant banking and insurance, or in industries from steel, machine-tools, ship-building and fertilisers to wrist-watches, hotels and beer. Nor is there any cogent reason why it should be a major producer, let alone a monopolist, in the road, rail, air and sea transport industries. Large-scale privatisation would be supported by private citizens in general, and would also draw out the reputedly vast private funds which circulate in the untaxable underground economy. But such measures would probably be opposed vigorously by the government officials who currently manage these industries, aswell as by the public-sector labour unions.

(d) Free-market pricing in agriculture
With the repudiation of the mistaken premise that government sponsored industrialisation is the best means to mass economic development, the free-market pricing of agricultural outputs and the removal of all controls that are not conducive to free competition among farmers should follow. This would be welcomed by all farmers and perhaps by the rural population in general. It could also be expected to provide much encouragement to the technological transformation of traditional agriculture. The abolition of ration-shops in urban areas would be opposed by the industrial working class, by the urban middle classes in general, and by government officials and employees engaged in the present regime of public distribution. Further, farmers, especially relatively large ones, might be expected to oppose the concomitant free-market pricing of agricultural inputs, including credit and fertilisers, as would those government employees presently charged with distributing these inputs.
The ending of the distortions in agricultural output and input prices would establish a conclusive case for uniform systems of taxation in the economy, and especially for income from agriculture to be treated on a par with income from other occupations. These systems could locally include direct subsidies to those (whether in rural or urban areas) who are unable to provide any income for themselves, such as the insane and the severely disabled – all of whom are currently cared for, if at all, by private charity, and none of whom, strangely enough, appears to enter the moral calculations of socialist and Marxist economists.

(e) Tax revenues for public goods
The first and most important destination of tax revenues, whether raised centrally, provincially or locally, must be the provision of public goods – central, provincial and local. In an earlier section, we have seen what kinds of goods these should be. Among the most urgent in India are more effective precautions against the monsoons and improvements in the efficiency of the systems of civil and criminal justice. The former might include measures to prevent soil erosion and the building of better dams, embankments, canals and roads. Such programmes would be likely to command practically unanimous support in the localities in which they were implemented.
Reforms of the judicial system might include raising the salaries of judges and policemen, as well as the penalties for their misconduct; improving the training and morale of the police, with the object of increasing public confidence in them (especially in the villages); and expanding the number of courts, at least temporarily until the monumental backlog of cases has been reduced and brought under control. A general reduction in the political and administrative direction of economic life would lead to fewer lawsuits being brought against the government itself, and thus provide further relief for the judiciary. Widespread prison reform may also be required if the reports are true that a large proportion of those held prisoner for a number of years have yet to be brought to trial, and that potential prosecution witnesses, if they are poor and uneducated, are themselves sometimes kept in jail until a case comes to court. Such reforms would command the support of everyone except criminals, capricious litigants and corrupt or incompetent members of the police and judiciary, none of which groups, it must be supposed, comprises apolitical constituency.

Together with improvements in the system of justice, the principle of equality before the law would have to be taken seriously. This would require the dispensation of justice by the state to be, as it were, a process blind to the infinitely diverse caste and ethnic characteristics of the citizenry, which in turn would imply the repeal of all laws – whether central, provincial or local – permitting governmental authorities to discriminate in favour of a particular politically-specified caste or ethnic group. Merely to have written `equality before the law’ into the Constitution without really believing it either possible or desirable is to allow the mutual caste and ethnic bigotry of private citizens to be exploited for political ends. That innumerable members of a caste, or religious or ethnic community have suffered at the hands of another, and that members of the `Scheduled Castes’ in particular have been victims of enormous cruelty, should not prevent acknowledgement of the sober fact that the past is irretrievable, or that it is similar cruelty in the present and future against any citizen at the hands of any other, or the state, that the declaration of Fundamental Rights was intended to prevent.

(f) Other reforms
Other proposals could also be suggested : the introduction of vouchers for primary and secondary education; a serious assessment of the benefits from and costs of subsidies to higher education; an end to the government monopoly of radio and television; a revision of government pay-scales to make them competitive with the private sector, together with equivalent reductions in non pecuniary benefits; a decentralisation of public spending decisions from New Delhi to the State capitals and from there to the districts; and so on. However, it is hardly necessary to go further, since even a limited liberal agenda would appear doomed to be still-born.
Incumbent politicians, government officials, and the public sector unions in general would vigorously oppose any reduction in government intervention in the economy for fear of losing the rents and sinecures of the status quo. Indeed, professional politicians in general could be expected to be averse to any lessening of the politicisation of economic life.
In other countries, a political party proposing such a reduction in government intervention would usually enjoy the backing of private industry. In India, however, private industry in general would probably see it in its own interest to support only the reduction of internal controls, whilst vigorously opposing reductions in the neo-mercantilist external controls. In July 1981, for example, I asked a prominent industrialist to imagine first a free-market regime at home : `That would be very welcome indeed’, he replied enthusiastically. I then asked him to imagine a policy of free trade : `That would wipe us out’, he replied gravely. His answers indicate very well what is perhaps the single most important feature of the equilibrium that has emerged in India: by accepting without significant protest the constraints and costs imposed upon it by the government and its `planners’, the private corporate sector has traded the freedom of enterprise for mercantilist monopoly profits in the home market.
When Indian Marxists rail about collusion between the `national bourgeoisie’ (that is, the governmental class) and the `comprador bourgeoisie’ (that is, the private sector), they make a cogent point as old as Adam Smith’s critique of mercantilism.[60] But, again, they fail to see that the fortunes of the industrial working-class have also risen with those of the private and public industries that have gained from the present regime. Moreover, a large proportion of industrial workers and blue-collar government employees are migrants with families left behind in rural areas; these rural families might also oppose reductions in the transfers currently received by their migrant relatives. Finally, while joining other farmers in welcoming a free market in grain, the politically influential larger farmers could be expected to oppose the direct taxation of agricultural incomes and the elimination of subsidies for inputs.

Who is left who would gain from the kinds of reforms proposed here? Only the ordinary citizen qua consumer, the rural poor and the residuum of severely disabled citizens unable to create any income for themselves. None of these has been or is likely to become an effective political force.

India’s `unhappy equilibrium’
The economy of the first Indian Republic has tended towards a broad and increasingly unhappy equilibrium. Distortions of efficient relative prices and wages lead to both substitution and income effects. Those who lose from one distortion rationally seek another from which they may gain; those who lose from the second seek a third; and so on ad infinitum until a maze of distorted incentives are in place and a60Adam Smith, host of income transfers are in progress – sometimes offsetting losses, sometimes not. Tullock has emphasised that the problem is not only that there are dead-weight losses in welfare, but also that people are led `. . . to employ resources in attempting to obtain or prevent such transfers.’[61] In modern India, the waste of productive resources put to the pursuit of such transfers has been incalculable. The reforms pro-posed here would cut through the maze of distorted incentives and institutions all at once – for which very reason it seems unlikely they can come to be implemented.

The economic significance of a political attitude of individualism is that it clearly recognises the relationship between individual effort and reward, and the relationship between cause and consequence generally. An attitude of statism obscures or obliterates this relationship. In republican India, statism has pervaded all public discourse and prompted most public policy. Successive groups of politicians and government officials seem never to have recognised the fundamental nature of those functions of government which are the indispensable prerequisites of civil peace and mass prosperity. Nor have they understood that it is no part of government’s agenda to be the driving force to mass prosperity, and that this can come (if it will) only from innumerable individual efforts in the pursuit of private rewards. This is not at all to say that those in government have been ill-intentioned. On the contrary, they may have sincerely sought the public good whilst introducing a Leviathan government into the market-place and neglecting the proper duties of government outside it. As Bauer has remarked in a related context :`Their financial benefits may appear to be fortuitous, as if Adam Smith’s invisible hand were to work in reverse, so that those who sought the public good achieve what was no part of their intention, namely personal prosperity.’[62] It is indeed possible that the basic fact of human nature that individual households every where ordinarily know most about, and are only concerned with, their own well-being has never been acknowledged in modern India. The simple secret of a stable and prosperous polity is to create institutions which harness the universal pursuit of individual self interest, and not ones which pretend that men are selfless saints. A polity where this fact is acknowledged would not have to depend for the viability of its institutions on mere exhortation, as the institutions of the Indian Republic seem perpetually fated to do, even while the competitive pursuit of self interest is everywhere manifest.

The logic of economic reasoning and the adducement of economic evidence have in the past had little effect in India because the distribution of gains and losses from the policies pursued has been closely matched by the distribution of effective political power. This distribution seems most likely to continue, and so the prospects of significant and sustained endogenous reform seem, to this author at least, very small. Changes in external constraints seem to be the only likely source of a major disturbance to the equilibrium, and there can be no guarantee that the results will be for the better. This is a sad and troubling conclusion to come to, for a citizen of India or anyone else who has loved the country. It places this author in the paradoxical position of believing his arguments to be broadly correct – while hoping they are not.

ENDNOTES (The original monograph in 1984 had footnotes, which have had to be transformed since pages, in this new HTML age, no longer have to be linear as in a book nor have to be turned in order to be read).

[1] The early studies notably include: B. R. Shenoy, `A note of dissent’, Papers relating to the formulation of the Second Five-Year Plan, Government of India Planning Commission, Delhi, 1955; Indian Planning and Economic Development, Asia Publishing, Bombay, 1963, especially pp. 17-53; P. T. Bauer, Indian Economic Policy and Development, George Allen & Unwin, London, 1961; M. Friedman, unpublished memorandum to the Government of India, November 1955 (referred to in Bauer, op. cit., p. 59 ff.); and, some years later, Sudha Shenoy, India : Progress or Poverty?, Research Monograph 27, Institute of Economic Affairs, London, 1971. Some of the most relevant contemporary studies are: B. Balassa, `Reforming the system of incentives in World Development, 3 (1975), pp. 365-82; `Export incentives and export performance in developing countries: a comparative analysis’, Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 114 (1978), pp. 24-61; The process of industrial development and alternative development strategies, Essays in International Finance No. 141, Princeton University, 1980; J. N. Bhagwati & P. Desai, India: Planning for Industrialisation, OECD, Paris : Oxford University Press, 1970; `Socialism and Indian Economic Policy’, World Development, 3 (1975), pp. 213-21; J. N. Bhagwati & T. N. Srinivasan, Foreign-trade Regimes and Economic Development: India, National Bureau of Economic Research, New York, 1975; Anne O. Krueger, `Indian planning experience’, in T. Morgan et al. (eds.), Readings in Economic Development, Wadsworth, California, 1963, pp. 403-20; `The political economy of the rent-American Economic Review, 64 (June 1974); The Benefits and Costs of Import-Substitution in India : a Microeconomic Study, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1975; Growth, distortions and patterns of trade among many countries, Studies in International Finance, Princeton University, 1977; Uma Lele, Food grain marketing in India : private performance and public policy, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1971; T. W. Schultz (ed.), Distortions in agricultural incentives, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1978; V. Sukhatme, “The utilization of high-yielding rice and wheat varieties in India: an economic assessment”, University of Chicago PhD thesis, 1977.

[2] S. Roy, “On liberty and economic growth: preface to a philosophy for India”, University of Cambridge PhD thesis, 1982a, Chapters I and II; “Knowledge and freedom in economic theory: Parts I and II”, Centre for Study of Public Choice, Virginia Tech, working papers, 1982b. My epistemological arguments have closely followed those of Renford Bambrough, Moral Scepticism and Moral Knowledge, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1979.

[3] Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea, in Richard McKeon (ed.), The Basic Works of Aristotle, Random House, New York, 1941. We read: `. . . the whole account of matters of conduct must be given in outline and not precisely, as we said at the very beginning that the accounts we demand must be in accordance with the subject matter; matters concerned with conduct and questions of what is good for us have no fixity, any more than matters of health. The general account being of this nature, this account of particular cases is yet more lacking in exactness; for they do not fall under any art or precept but the agents themselves must in each case consider what is appropriate to the occasion, as happens also in the art of medicine or of navigation.’ (1,104a2-a9.)`. . . we do not deliberate even about all human affairs; for instance, no Spartan deliberates about the best constitution for the Scythians. For none of these things can be brought about by our own efforts. We deliberate about things that are in our power and can be done.’ (1,112a28-30.) Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations(1776), eds. R. H. Campbell et al., Liberty Classics, Indianapolis, 1981. We read: `What is the species of domestick industry which his capital can employ, and of which the produce is likely to be of the greatest value, every individual, it is evident, can, in hislocal situation, judge much better than any statesman or lawgiver can do for him.’ (Book IV. ii. 10, p. 456.) In modern times, Friedrich Hayek has always kept this fact in the foreground of his thinking. In his Individualism and Economic Order, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1949, we read, for example, of `. . . the constitutional limitation of man’s knowledge and interests, the fact the he cannot know more than a tiny part of the whole of society and that therefore all that can enter into his motives are the immediate effects which his actions will have in the sphere he knows . . .’ (p. 14.) The individual agent has a `special knowledge of circumstances of the; thus `. . . practically every individual has some advantage over all others because he possesses unique information of which beneficial use might be made, but of which use can be made only if the decisions depending on it are left to him or are made with his active co-operation.’ (p. 80.)

[4] The mathematical economist will recognise these three conditions as the characteristics which define a multi-market general equilibrium in the Arrow-Debreu model: Gerard Debreu, Theory of Value, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1959; K. J. Arrow and F. H. Hahn, General Competitive Analysis, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, 1971.

[5] This argument is discussed further in Roy (1982a), pp. 96-107, pp. 133-43.

[6] Adam Smith, op. cit., Book V. i. c., p. 723.

[7] P. A. Samuelson, `A pure theory of public expenditures’, Review of Economics & Statistics, 36, 1954,reprinted in K. J. Arrow & T. Scitovsky (eds.), Readings in Welfare Economics, R. D. Irwin, Homewood, Ill., 1969.

[8] The idea I have in the background is of some implicit public goods function endorsed more or less unanimously by citizens – but not necessarily by those with political power – with commonsense dictating the elements it should contain. Thus Let U = U (π1, π2 , …, πn) be such a function with δU/δπi > 0, δ2U/δπi2 < 0 i=1,2,…,n, where πi = 1,2,…n, is a lateral index of a public good or service like defence, civil protection, roads, dams, or the finance of basic education. Each of these is “produced” by an expenditure of public resources: πi = πi (τi ), δπi/δτi > 0, δ2πi /δτi2 < 0 i=1,2,…,k, Σ i=1,2,…,n τi = τ* where τ* is the total level of public resources available (whether by taxation or borrowing). An efficient condition, i.e., one in which given public resources are efficiently allocated among alternative public goods or services, would be δU/δπi/ δπi/δτi = δU/δπj / δπj/δτj for every i,j = 1,2,. .,n. So, if the marginal tax-rupee was put towards the production of any public good, the increase in social utility should be the same; otherwise we would find an excess supply of some public goods (e.g. bureaucrats) and an excess demand for others (e.g. courts, dams, police protection, etc.).

[9] Two examples are F. H. Hahn, On the notion of equilibrium in economics : an inaugural lecture, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1973, and J. M. Grandmont, “Temporary general equilibrium theory : a survey”, Econometrica, vol. 46, 1977.

[10] Aristotle, op. cit., 1,094b12-1,094b27

[11] D. H. Robertson, `The Economic Outlook’, in his Utility and All That, Allen & Unwin, London, 1952, pp.51-52.

[12] Karl Popper made a similar point in The Open Society and its Enemies, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1950, when he suggested that Plato’s question `who should rule?’ should be discarded for the question:`How can we so organise political institutions that bad or incompetent rulers can be prevented from doing too muchdamage?’ (p. 120). There is relevant discussion by Renford Bambrough in `Plato’s modern friends and enemies’, Philosophy, 37, 1962, reprinted in R.Bambrough (ed.), Plato, Popper and Politics : some contributions to a modern controversy, Barnes and Noble, New York, 1967. I have discussed the relationship of expertise to democracy in Roy (1982a), pp 80-95.

[13] Virginia Bill of Rights, 1776, in The Constitution of the United States, ed. E. C. Smith, Barnes & Noble, New York, 1979, p. 21.

[14] P. T. Bauer, Dissent on Development, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1971, p. 72, n. 2. The term `statism’ suggested itself to the author after he read M. R. Masani, “Post-Sanjay outlook: where salvation does not lie” The Statesman, 9 July 1980.

[15]G. M. Young (ed.), Macaulay: Prose and Poetry, London: Macmillan, 1952, p. 718. Some 20 years later, in Considerations on Representative Government, ed. H. B. Acton (London: J. M. Dent), J. S. Mill claimed that rule by`a superior people . . . is often of the greatest advantage to a people, carrying them rapidly through several stages of progress’ (Ch. IV, p. 224). Ironically, a few years ago a distinguished retired member of the Indian civil service (who happens to be a recipient of the Lenin Peace Prize) used very similar words in a newspaper article – in defence of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan!

[16] Resolution of the Indian National Congress, August 1931, reprinted in B. N. Pandey (ed.), The IndianNationalist Movement : 1885-1947, Macmillan, London, 1979, p. 67.

[17] S. Radhakrishnan, The philosophy of Rabindranath Tagore, Macmillan, London, 1918, p. 232. For an excellent account of the intercourse between ancient India and ancient Greece, H. G. Rawlinson, `Early contacts between India and Europe’, in A. L. Basham (ed.), A Cultural History of India, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1975. For excellent accounts of the growth of liberalism in India in the l9th and carly 20th centuries : Anil Seal, The Emergence of Indian Nationalism : Competition and Collaboration in the later l9th Century, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1971, Chs. 1, 3-6; J. R. McLane, Indian Nationalism and the Early Congress, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1977; Gordon Johnson, Provincial Politicsand Indian Nationalism,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1973, Ch. 1.

[18] Ramsay Macdonald’s letter to M. K. Gandhi, 8 September 1932, reprinted in Pandey (ed.), op. cit., p. 74.

[19] Devdas Gandhi’s letter to Jawaharlal Nehru, 2 October 1931, reprinted in Pandey (ed.), op. cit., p. 71

[20] Gandhi’s protest succeeded to the extent that the Award itself was superseded; and in unusual, euphoric displays of fraternity, `caste’ Hindus threw open temples to members of the `Depressed Classes’ and embraced them with
garlands. The compromise Pact which replaced the Communal Award removed separate electorates but still guaranteed special political representation for some years following the agreement. For an account of Gandhi’ s position on the Communal Award, Judith M. Brown, Gandhi and Civil Disobedience, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1977, pp. 313-21.

[21] For an eminent lawyer’s commentary, N. A. Palkhivala, The Light of the Constitution, Forum of Free Enterprise, Bombay, 1976.

[22] There is reason to think the Mughals before the British had done no better and had probably done much worse. T. Raychaudhuri, `The State and the Economy: the Mughal Empire’, in T. Raychaudhuri & I. Habib (eds.), The Cambridge Economic History of India, vol. I, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982.

[23] V. B. Singh (ed.), Nehru on Socialism, Government of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Publications Division, Delhi, 1977, pp. 56-57, 67.

[24] `Draft recommendations for the formulation of the Second Five Year Mahalanobis;`The Second Five-Year Plan – A tentative framework’, drafted by the economic ministries; and a `Memorandum’ written by a panel of prominent Indian economists – all contained in Papers relating to the formulation of the SecondFive Year Plan, Government of India: Planning Commission, 1955 – were the principal influences on the actual Second Plan. No significant understanding of markets, prices or the concept of feasibility is evident on the part of any of the authors. Shenoy’s lonely dissent has already been noted (note 1).

[25] The best descriptions of Indian industrial policy are still to be found in Bhagwati and Desai (1970), op. cit. Also C. Wadhwa, `New Industrial Licensing Policy: An Appraisal’, in C. Wadhwa (ed.), Some problems of India’seconomic policy, Tata-McGraw Hill, Delhi, 1977, pp. 290-324.

[26] Gordon Tullock is generally credited with introducing the notion of rent-seeking in `The welfare costs of tariffs, monopolies and theft’, Western Economic, Journal, 5 (June 1967), while Krueger (1974), op. cit., introduced the term itself. The collection edited by J. M. Buchanan et al., Toward a theory of the rent-seeking society, Texas A&M Press, College Station, 1980, contains reprints of both papers as well as other studies.

[27] Krueger (1975), op. cit., p. 108 ff.

[28] The classic argument for a free market is in M. Friedman, `The case for flexible exchange rates’, in his Essays in Positive Economics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1953, pp. 157-203. Also V. S. Vartikar,Commercial policy and economic development in India, Praeger, New York, 1969, based on his PhD at Wayne State University; and D. Lal, A liberal international economic order : the international monetary system and economic development, Essays in International Finance No. 139, Princeton University, October 1980.

[29] An additive sub-utility function might be defined within each set of categories UG= ∑ ai vi (Gi) a1 ≥ a2 ≥ a3, ∑ ai= 1UP= ∑ bj wj (Pj) b1 ≥ b2 ∑ bj= 1where the vi (.) and the wj (.) are further sub-utility functions defined on each category, etc. None of these has ever been spelt out by the Indian Government and certainly no amount of UP has seemed substitutable for an iota of UG.

[30] Bhagwati and Srinivasan, op. cit., p. 38.

[31] Ibid.,p. 38

[32] In 1980, for example, exports of pig-iron and of sheep- and goat-meat were banned; an export duty on jute manufactures was imposed on 18 February and lifted on 8 September. (Annual Report on Exchange Controls, International Monetary Fund, 1981, pp. 205-13.) The Import and Export Policy (April 1982, March 1983)announced by the Commerce Ministry reported the banning of exports of cane, paraffin wax, mustard and rape-seedoil, and `certain
wild-life items’, including lizards and robins. An embargo on the export of CTC (cut, tear and curl) tea was announced by the Ministry of Commerce on 24December 1983. CTC is high-quality tea which accounts for about three-quarters of India’s tea exports. The ban followed a doubling of domestic prices over the previous year, compulsory registration of tea dealers holding more than 1,000 kg. to prevent hoarding, and agreement by manufacturers to reduce their profit margins and cut prices ofpackaged tea by about 20 per cent (Financial Times, 14 December 1983). The Indian Government apparently feared that the supply of tea for the domestic market was going to run out (The Times, 5 January 1984). The effect of thesemeasures is artificially to depress prices in the domestic market whilst raising them overseas (The Economist, 14 January 1984).

[33] Pick’s Currency Year-book, various editions

[34] Krueger (1977), op. cit., pp. 27-28.

[35] Balassa (1978), op. cit., p. 39; Balassa (1980), op. cit., p. 16.

[36] Ibid.,p. 22.

[37] Short surveys of the relevant practices can be found in Lele, op. cit.,Appendix 1, pp. 225-37, and Sukhatme, op. cit., pp. 29-37. Also Gilbert Brown, `Agricultural pricing policies in developing countries’, and G. E.Schuh, `Approaches to “basic needs” and to “equity” that distort incentives in agriculture’, in Schultz (ed.), op. cit.,pp. 84-113 and pp. 307-27 respectively.

[38] Theoretical economists have long recognised that a fundamental flaw in, for example, the Arrow-Debreu model is its assumption that all conceivable futures contracts are practicable. The longest futures price actually quoted at
the Chicago Board of Trade, however, would be for silver, at about two years; for grains, the longest would be only about three months. Since the natural market outcome is a far-cry from the theory, the Indian Government’s fears about the effects of speculation appear to be much exaggerated. To see the risk-dispersing character of a futures contract, let us suppose that both buyer and seller place a probability of one-half on prices being either in 8 or 2; if they are risk-averse, they may prefer to trade at a certain futures price of 5 now, rather than wait for the future to unfold.

[39] David Hopper, `Distortions of agricultural development resulting from Government prohibitions,’ Schultz (ed.), op. cit., p. 69 ff.

[40] K. Prasad, `Foodgrains policy 1966-1976′, in Wadhwa (ed.), op. cit., p.479.

[41] Schultz (ed.), op. cit., p. 309.

[42] Sukhatme, op. cit., pp. 74-86; T. W. Schultz, `On the economics and politics of agriculture’, in Schultz(ed.), op. cit., p. 15 ff.

[43] Schultz (ed.), op. cit., pp. 92-93.

[44] Ibid.,p. 95.

[45] T. N. Srinivasan, `Income Distribution: A survey of policy-aspects’, in Wadhwa (ed.), op. cit., p. 265. That the small farmer may not find it profitable to invest in storage, and that (if it has been taxed) agriculture has been taxed regressively, are also remarked upon by Srinivasan.

[46] Lele, op. cit., p. 2, where reference is made to Sir Henry Knight, Food Administration in India, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1954.

[47] Lele, op. cit., pp. 214-24

[48] For example, M. Todaro, `A model of labor migration and urban unemployment in less developed countries’, American Economic Review, March 1969, 59, pp. 138-48; J. P. Harris & M. Todaro, `Migration,unemployment and development: a two-sector analysis’, American Economic Review, March 1970 60, pp. 126-42.The best paper known to the author is by Jerome Rothenberg, `On the economics of internal migration’, Working Paper No. 189, Dept. of Economics, MIT, July 1976.

[49] Thomas Sowell, Knowledge and Decisions, Basic Books, New York, 1980, pp. 268-69.

[50] `The logic of protection’, The Statesman, Editorial, 19 March 1981; also the Editorial, `Danger of caste ethnic

[51] S. K. Datta Ray, `Backlash to protection: fancy gifts ignore real reform’, The Statesman Weekly, 21 March 1981.

[52]M. Weiner, M. F. Katzenstein, K.V.N. Rao, India’s preferential policies : migrants, the middle classes and ethnic equality, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1981, pp. 16-17.

[53] Ibid. p. 5

[54] P. T. Bauer, `Population explosion: myths and realities’, in Equality, the Third World and Economic Delusion, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1981, pp. 42-65, contains some of the clearest arguments known to the author about this question; also M. Weiner, India at the Polls : the Parliamentary Election of 1977, American Enterprise Institute, Washington DC, 1978, pp. 35-39.

[55] 10 8 million people affected by floods’, The Statesman Weekly, 22 August 1981; also `Down the drain’, Editorial in The Statesman, 8 July 1981.

[56] Justice with speed’, Editorial in The Statesman, Calcutta and New Delhi, 21 July, 1980

[57] Aristotle, op. cit., 1,094a1-1, 094b11.

[58] There are few thorough studies known to the author that are relevant. One such is Asha L. Dattar, India’s Economic Relations with the USSR and Eastern Europe 1953-1969, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1972.

[59] Bauer (1981) op. cit. Chapters 5 & 6.

[60]. Adam Smith op cit Book IV; also B. Baysinger et al.,`Mercantilism as a rent-seeking society’, in Buchanan et al (eds) op. cit. pp. 235-68.

[61] G. Tullock in Buchanan et al. (eds.), op. cit., p. 48.

[62] Bauer (1981), op. cit., p. 144.